Housing: Market Renewal Pathfinder Programmes

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Greaves, and at his request, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
	The Question was as follows:
	To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will review the housing market renewal pathfinder programmes to ensure that they fulfil their transformational agenda while maintaining the distinctive character of the towns and neighbourhoods that they cover.

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, on 24 March, the Deputy Prime Minister announced funding for six pathfinders for 2006-08. In reaching decisions, we considered a scheme update from each pathfinder, which set out its strategy and proposed a programme for the next four years. Important factors in our assessment include the quality of community involvement and consideration of heritage. Pathfinders are very alive to the benefits of capitalising on the distinctive character of their area.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, in some existing pathfinder areas, house prices have risen so significantly that it now makes better economic sense to renovate properties rather than to demolish them as planned? Given that the local preference is often to retain the original character of streets, will partnerships be allowed to respond to local markets and circumstances as appropriate?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I can give the noble Baroness a positive response. She will know that to date we have seen 17,000 refurbishments, 5,000 demolitions and 7,500 new properties built in depressed areas of the country where housing markets had collapsed for years. We are seeing an upturn in the market; it is reflected across the country. It still has not closed the gap by any means. We have asked the pathfinders to take account of new housing conditions and markets and are pressing them to think clearly, in those circumstances, about the balance between replacement, refurbishment and new build, so that they will get the right mix for those areas.

Lord Renton: My Lords, although I have been in Parliament for more than 60 years, I have never before seen the expression "transformational agenda". Does the noble Baroness know what it means? If so, could she tell us?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I take the point that the noble Lord is always anxious that clarity of language should be the business of the Government. I have visited areas and walked the streets to see nothing but boarded-up houses and then, in the next street, I have seen nice, Victorian houses that have been refurbished and are now warmer, more comfortable and better able to cope with families in those areas. I have spoken to the people who have been rehoused and witnessed their pleasure at having a garden for the first time or separate bedrooms for their children. That is what we mean by "transformation".

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is the consultation on the operation of pathfinders adequate and robust?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, that is an important question. We do our very best, as pathfinders do, to make sure that consultation is as deep and wide as it can be. People face the possibility of moving out of their communities, although in many instances they are very pleased to go. In some areas, 30 per cent of people have said that they want to move in the next few years. We want people to move back into those areas. The consultation processes go as far, for example, as having local buses touring the area so that people can look at local plans. In Derker, for example, a community support officer is in the neighbourhood constantly. We have made all sorts of changes to the programme in response to the local community. For example, in Liverpool, in the Anfield area, the number of demolitions proposed was increased in response to community demand. Over the next few months and years we will certainly keep a close eye on that process.

The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, the noble Baroness has—in my view, rightly—praised the conversion and repair of good Victorian buildings. Why is it that in Liverpool, in particular, there has been considerable objection to the proposed mass slaughter of some of the remaining good-quality, well designed Victorian buildings, which the Deputy Prime Minister wishes to raze to the ground to put up tower blocks?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is not mass slaughter. I should very much like to cite what the local community is saying. I paraphrase the comments of the secretary of the residents' association in one of those areas: "Damp and unsound houses are not my heritage. We want houses that are modern and comfortable so that we can stay in the area, because this is where we want to stay and bring up our children". We have absolutely no argument with the idea that heritage is a major asset in those areas. Character is important to where we all live, no less so in areas that have housed working-class people over the years.

Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, will my noble friend join me in congratulating the groups that have come together in Burnley to remove the blight of accommodation in which no one should ever have been asked to live, let alone be let by absent landlords? Will she join me in welcoming the new housing that is going up in the areas that have been cleared as a result of those programmes?

Baroness Andrews: Yes, indeed, my Lords. I pay tribute to my predecessor in this post, my noble friend Lord Rooker, who visited Burnley on several occasions and saw the conditions in which people were living. Some of those houses were changing hands for less than £5,000 at one point. The Elevate programme, which covers the Burnley area, will, as a result of the announcement, have £94 million more to invest in the refurbishment of that area. We will see many improvements.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, what help is being given to first-time buyers in the pathfinder areas?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, first-time buyers in those areas and in the rest of the country, will, I hope, be able to access the equity-sharing arrangements. Many of the refurbished houses will be welcomed by first-time buyers.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that, if VAT on refurbishment work were reduced, the money to deal with refurbished properties would go a lot further in those areas?

Baroness Andrews: My Lords, that question has been put to successive Ministers for many years. The noble Baroness makes an important point; I am sure that the Treasury will keep it under review.

Comprehensive Spending Review 2007

Lord Barnett: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How comprehensive the 2007 public expenditure review will be; and when it will be published.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, in 1997, the incoming Government launched the first Comprehensive Spending Review, reflecting the public's priorities for health, education and better public services. A decade on, the second Comprehensive Spending Review 2007 will take a zero-based look at departmental expenditure, embedding efficiency into long-term planning and identifying what further investments and reforms are needed to meet the global challenges of the decade ahead. The date of publication has not yet been confirmed.

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I think that I am grateful to my noble friend, although it is not clear whether he actually answered my Question. Is he aware that, according to the most recent figures, public expenditure per head in Scotland is £7,786, whereas in England it is £6,391? Does he not therefore accept that there is a strong case for renewal of the Barnett formula to be included in the Comprehensive Spending Review? Surely, in the light of those figures, my noble friend will accept that it is long overdue for review.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, any Barnett formula is bound to have merit and worth and should, like the noble Lord, be continually refreshed. If I did not answer his Question sufficiently, I should say that the 2007 CSR will come on the back of the longest sustained increase in public expenditure since the Second World War. In the decade since that CSR, the Government have delivered a strong economy, sound public finances and a sustained and substantial growth in investment in public services. Compared with 1996–97, spending in schools will be 65 per cent higher in real terms. In the NHS, it will be 90 per cent higher in real terms, and in transport it will be 60 per cent higher in real terms.

Lord Newby: My Lords, given that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is very fond of setting up committees of eminent persons to review matters of public policy, does the Minister agree that the Barnett formula should be reviewed by such an eminent group, and that no one is more eminent to lead that group than the noble Lord, Lord Barnett?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, in the short time that I have had this role, I have been for ever paying tribute to the eminence of my noble friend Lord Barnett.

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Minister will know that the Budget last week raised the proportion of tax in the tax-to-GDP ratio to a 20-year high. Will he commit the Government to carrying out the next spending review in a way that does not increase taxes yet further?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the projections for the longer term set out what can be affordable, and the spending review will take place in the context of that framework. The precise framework will be explained in the 2007 Budget. I should point out that tax and national insurance as a percentage of GDP are lower than they were in the mid-80s under the government supported by the noble Baroness. Not only was tax higher then as a percentage of GDP, but so was net debt. That government were somehow able to produce higher taxes, greater debt and economic failure at the same time.

Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, as we have no knowledge of a general election or, so far as I know, of any particularly interesting by-election, would the Minister revert to the normal custom of the House and answer the questions put to him?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I always seek to answer the questions. If the noble Lord would point out which questions I have not answered, I would be happy to try again. It is important that we inject the facts into our deliberations.

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, will my noble friend give a clear undertaking that the Barnett formula will be re-examined in this public expenditure review?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, it is not for me to give that undertaking, but I will certainly pass on our exchanges today to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and I am sure that the matter will be taken into account.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, meritorious though the formula of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, may be, it is much misunderstood. Will the Minister confirm that it applies only to increases in public expenditure?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I am not sure that I can confirm that from my own experience, but I will be happy to write to the noble Lord or seek guidance from my noble friend Lord Barnett. I very much see myself as an apprentice in such matters.

Lord Haskel: My Lords, will the Minister undertake to ensure that the review will continue to maintain low inflation and strengthen the economy by spending on skills, technology, research and innovation?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I am sure that each of those matters will be at the heart of the new spending review.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I return to the Minister's Answer. Will he tell the House how the Treasury intends to embed efficiency into "long-term planning"?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, the Treasury will do so in part by carrying on what it has done to embed—for the first time in public expenditure planning—a performance management culture with targets, to see where the efficiencies recommended by Gershon can be achieved. It continues to deepen that culture and to see in a cross-cutting way how government, like local authorities, can deliver services better and more efficiently.

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, in that case and following the answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, will the Minister give priority to the Rural Payments Agency?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, it is not for me at the Dispatch Box to give priority to any of these matters. I am sure that the discussions that have taken place in your Lordships' House and elsewhere will be borne fully in mind in the delivery that the Government are intent on ensuring.

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, will the Minister confirm to the House that, as regards the Barnett formula, GDP in Wales is lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom by double figures? We urgently need to reform it based on needs, which are very great in Wales.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I am sure that the interests and needs of Wales, Scotland, England and Northern Ireland will be fully taken into account in this spending review. When looking overall at what has been achieved in economic performance, outcomes and attainments for a range of services, we can see that it has been a very profound period of government.

Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, in relation to a previous question on the great initiative of embedding efficiency, has that concept been taken with regard to the National Health Service? If so, has it been a success?

Lord McKenzie of Luton: Yes, my Lords, it has been a success. If noble Lords look at the data, they will see that efficiencies have already been obtained in that service. I do not have the figure in my brief, but something like £2.2 billion springs to mind from an earlier briefing. Yes, there are particular difficulties with some trusts, which are a minority of the total trusts that operate throughout the UK. The overspends to which the noble Baroness may be referring are a tiny percentage of the total spend that the NHS undertakes, but the NHS, as every other service, will engage in the process to make sure that we continue to improve efficiencies, so that more funding can go to the front line, which is the key.

Prisons: Diet and Behaviour

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What steps they are taking to apply the results of modern research into diet and behaviour to prisons.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that prisoners receive a healthy diet. The recent report by the National Audit Office on prisoner diet and exercise is clear that the quality of prison catering has improved recently. Natural Justice has studied the relationship between diet and behaviour at Aylesbury young offender institution. The Prison Service has offered to host research in additional establishments, subject to appropriate ethical and quality approval, on whether the findings can be replicated more widely.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. While not wishing to suggest that the kind of chemical control that those of my generation who did National Service unanimously believe was imposed on us is being used now, may I suggest that the definition of "a healthy diet", as I think the Minister confirmed, includes the kind of findings that will lead to a diminution of aggressiveness and violent behaviour?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that a healthy diet is of real importance. Noble Lords will know that, since Sir Stephen Tumim made his report in 1991, we have made trenchant efforts to change the availability and quality of the food provided in our prisons to good effect, as has been demonstrated this month by the 2006 NAO report. The whole point of agreeing to facilitate the research is to see whether something may be contributed through diet and behaviour.

Lord Waddington: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of Natural Justice. Is it not encouraging that the work that it has done over the years to establish the connection between diet and behaviour is becoming more recognised every day?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is important work. As I indicated, we are seeking to facilitate the further testing of that. We wait with interest to see whether the outcomes are as good as many hope they will be.

Lord Harrison: My Lords, does my noble friend recognise the needs of diabetic prisoners, including their dietary needs, and the problem of people believing to be violent behaviour that which is attributable to a hypoglycaemic episode? Does she also recognise the plight of one prisoner currently in Her Majesty's detention who is unable to marry meal times with his insulin injections, which need to be taken shortly before meals?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that it is important to identify the needs of specific prisoners and to ensure that they are met in a way that enables them to stay healthy. I assure my noble friend that everything is being done to ensure that the highest possible quality of care is provided to those who are incarcerated in our prisons.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, given the Government's and the Minister's commitment to crime reduction and to keeping prison numbers down, does she agree that the research to which the noble Lord's Question refers needs also to be looked at in relation to the diet of young people who are particularly vulnerable to being drawn into a life of crime, before they get into prisons? I appreciate the work being done on prison diets and regimes, but all of that can be jeopardised if we do not attend to the causes that bring people into prison. If diet is a part of that, it should be a matter for careful research.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the question of diet is relevant not just to those in prison; it is relevant to all of us for healthy living. The Department of Health's Choosing Health agenda applies to everyone including those in prison and provides a further impetus to improve meals. Prison catering staff are provided with regular training and information. However, the general thrust for all of us to become healthier, including healthy provision for our children, is of real importance. The five pieces of fruit a day that we are all exhorted to eat together with children is a jolly good thing.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the noble Baroness consult the Chief Inspector of Prisons, who has said in her annual report that diet can have a significant effect on behaviour? Does she think that the average budget of £1.87 per day allocated for food in prisons allows governors to provide the effective diet that the chief inspector calls for, and has the NAO report, which criticises the level of salt in prison diets—93 per cent over the recommended limits—and the inadequate level of fibre been taken note of in the Home Office?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord will know that we have taken seriously issues of food quality, reduction in fat intake, promotion of fibre-rich foods and appropriate food preparation. I think that it was Sir Stephen Tumim who observed back in 1991 that the issue was not money but our attitude to how we provided it and dealt with it. We have certainly addressed those issues. It is therefore a matter of some satisfaction and pleasure that the quality of provision that we are now making is so much higher than it has ever been before.

Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is a great pity that the prison farms and kitchen gardens that prisoners have been tending until now are being closed? Apart from being good for their diet, the work was good for their behaviour pattern. It gave them something of real interest to pursue. I am not suggesting that they should eat horses, but I think it a great pity—I hope that the Minister will agree—that the Suffolk Punch stud farm is being closed.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot comment directly on the Suffolk Punch stud farm, but I agree with the noble Baroness that the exercise and general contribution provided by kitchen gardens is to be applauded. I know that a number of prisoners have gained some quite wonderful rewards as a result of them.

Armed Forces: US Missile Defence

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What consultations they will hold on the implications of the announcement by the head of the United States Missile Defence Agency that the United Kingdom has been chosen as a prime candidate to host missiles for the United States' missile defence system.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the United States announced that it is,
	"considering the potential of fielding a small number of interceptor missiles in Europe".
	In Washington last week, the United Kingdom was mentioned as a candidate for a possible missile defence site. The US has made no request about an interceptor site in the UK. It has said that it will continue to consult allies on missile defence issues. We expect to be engaged in those discussions. No decisions on further UK participation in missile defence have been taken.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful Answer. Can the Government assure the House as to the kind of consultation that they will have with parties and Parliament when such a request comes? Does the Minister recognise that the current American Administration have a rather unilateral approach to their use of bases in other sovereign states and that the degree of extra-territoriality that some of us have already witnessed in US bases in this country is a little worrying? We are therefore concerned. It is a particularly sensitive subject, and we wish to ensure that there is full and open consultation, once an American request is made.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I can assure the House that we recognise the complexity and sensitivity that surround these matters. We have had discussions on these matters for more than 20 years with the United States as the technology surrounding the possibility of missile defence has emerged. Given the recognition of the sensitivity, I will pass on to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the point that the noble Lord has made about the need for full consultation on these matters.

Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that in the United States the question of how effective missile defence is likely to be is a very lively one? There is no consensus on it. The argument, of course, is that missiles are not particularly effective against terrorism. Will the Minister comment on that?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, we recognise, as the noble Baroness states, that the matters are under debate. We have to look at the possibilities of the technologies surrounding missile defence in the wider defence context. Of course, any potential technology—I say "potential" technology—would not have any merit relating to terrorist attacks, but that is not the purpose for which it may be envisaged. However, we recognise the complexity and sensitivity of the issue and note that it would require a full debate if such a request was made to the United Kingdom.

The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, following on from that question, in the light of the fact that when President Reagan launched his space defence initiative almost all strategists in this country believed that it would make the world a more dangerous place, is the Minister convinced that the situation is now sufficiently different so that our association with any American defence system would enhance rather than undermine our security?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, it is correct to say that there are different schools of thought with regard to the impact that such potential missile defence technology may have on proliferation. There are some who take the view that it would decrease the rate of proliferation by taking out the incentive to develop said weapons; there are others who feel that it would increase the complexity of development. As I have said, they are matters of some complexity, which need full consideration—not least of which is the complexity relating to the technology, which is separate to issues relating to politics and discussion.

Lord Anderson of Swansea: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that some critics have labelled this an expensive Maginot line in the sky. Nevertheless, it may have some merit against rogue states which possess long-range weapons. As far as my noble friend is aware, is it the current thinking of the US Government that any protection that is offered will be for the whole of Europe, or will it be more limited?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, the matters are under discussion. The United States has indicated that it is prepared to discuss the extension of the provision of a missile defence system, should one be put in place, to provide protection to its friends and allies. Those matters are also under discussion under the auspices of NATO.

Lord Garden: My Lords, given the particular dangers from anti-missile missile systems of friendly fire incidents, as we have seen in various tragic cases, can the Minister today assure the House that, if any missiles were placed on United Kingdom territory by another nation, we would retain dual key control of them?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, we have not got to the point of discussing the basis on which any such technology may or may not be sited on UK soil or anywhere in Europe, and so it would not be appropriate to get into discussion of the conditions under which such technology may be deployed.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, does the Minister agree that issues such as extraordinary rendition, Guantanamo Bay, ITAR and JSF will make it much harder to sell the BMD policy to the British public?

Lord Drayson: No, my Lords, I do not agree with that premise. Having recently been in Washington to discuss the specific matters of the JSF in the context of our strong relationship with the United States, I do not believe that that will be the case.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, when the Government undertake consultation with Parliament and the political parties over any proposals that may be made to us by the United States, will it extend to consideration of the use being made of our law of criminal trespass against peaceful activists protesting against US bases on British soil, such as Miss Lindis Percy?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I will pass on to my right honourable friend the noble Lord's comments on the scope that he would wish such a debate to encompass.

Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that any decisions that we make on defence in the future will rest on our analysis of what is the threat and nothing else?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, that is absolutely correct. I agree with my noble friend; it is important to say that we do not today see any threat to the United Kingdom that would require a missile defence system. That is not to say that a threat could not emerge in the future, and we must think about such threats, should they emerge. But we do not see a threat to warrant a missile defence system today.

Business

Lord Grocott: My Lords, with permission, I would like to say a couple of words about business later today, so far as I am able. The House will now consider the Third Reading of the Fraud Bill. Immediately after that, with the permission of the House, my noble friend Lord Drayson will repeat a Statement on the Deepcut review. We shall then consider Commons Messages on the Identity Cards Bill, which have just arrived. Any Member of the House can table amendments to the Bill until around 4.30 pm. A Marshalled List will be issued, and we will start consideration of the Identity Cards Bill as soon as possible after the completion of the Statement, which should be at about 4.45 pm.
	These timings are not precise, but they are as close as we can guess. I will of course keep the House informed of any timings; we will do it by the simple technological method of the Annunciator. When we have considered the Identity Cards Bill, the House will proceed to the Second Reading of the Violent Crime Reduction Bill.

Police (Northern Ireland) Bill [HL]

Lord Laird: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
	Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Laird.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Northern Ireland Act 2000 (Modification) Order 2006

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 27 February be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee] [Considered in Grand Committee on 22 March].—(Lord Rooker.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Government of Wales Bill

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Evans of Temple Guiting on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Government of Wales Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
	Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clauses 3 to 27, Schedule 2, Clauses 28 to 58, Schedule 3, Clauses 59 to 87, Schedule 4, Clauses 88 to 93, Schedule 5, Clauses 94 to 102, Schedule 6, Clauses 103 to 107, Schedule 7, Clauses 108 to 144, Schedule 8, Clauses 145 to 148, Schedule 9, Clauses 149 to 159, Schedule 10, Clauses 160 and 161, Schedule 11, Clause 162, Schedule 12, Clauses 163 to 165.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Fraud Bill [HL]

Read a third time.

Lord Goodhart: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Insert the following new Clause—
	"Prosecution of common law offence of conspiracy to defraud
	In making a decision whether to charge a person with a common law offence of conspiracy to defraud, regard shall be had to guidance published by the Attorney General."

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, we on these Benches wanted the Bill to contain a provision to abolish the common-law offence of conspiracy to defraud, as recommended by the Law Commission, and I moved an amendment to that effect on Report. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General wishes to retain the offence for the time being because, in his view, it may be useful in certain circumstances. But it is agreed that the retention of the common-law offence will be reviewed in three years' time in the light of the extent to which it turns out to be useful in the interim.
	The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General offered to show the draft advice which he has prepared for prosecutors and which is intended to restrict the use of the common-law offence to cases which are not adequately covered by the new legislation on fraud. He has sent copies of a working draft of his advice to me and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. I am satisfied by the advice, but it would be very helpful if the noble and learned Lord could explain it to your Lordships' House and put on record an outline of his advice. In the circumstances, it is my intention to withdraw my amendment at the end of the debate. I beg to move.

Lord Kingsland: My Lords, my name also is on the amendment. I thank the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for expediting this document. It has been extremely helpful in our approach to Third Reading.
	The Attorney-General has helpfully summarised in paragraph 8 of his draft advice the judgment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, the then Lord Chief Justice, in the joined cases R v Rimmington and R v Goldstein. The latter part of the portion of the judgment which appears in paragraph 8 reads,
	"good practice and respect for the primacy of statute do in my judgment require that conduct falling within the terms of a specific statutory provision should be prosecuted under that provision unless there is good reason for doing otherwise".
	The Attorney-General's draft goes on in paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 15 to consider the circumstances in which there might be good reason for doing otherwise. Paragraph 15 is quite unexceptionable. It sets out the specific circumstances in which the definition of fraud in the Bill does not stretch to certain potentially undesirable activities. It might, therefore, be appropriate for those to be prosecuted under the common-law offence of conspiracy to defraud.
	More interestingly, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General considers a second category in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14, which is,
	"Conduct that can more effectively be prosecuted as conspiracy to defraud".
	This category was not really dealt with in the Law Commission's report on fraud; that report dealt with the substantive law. Here, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General has turned to matters of sentencing and admissibility.
	As I understand the thrust of these paragraphs, there may be circumstances in which it is right to use conspiracy to defraud because prosecuting under statutory offences, even though they cover the activity concerned, would not give rise to an appropriate sentence, and because the collection of statutory offences, unlike the offence of conspiracy to defraud, would not reveal to the court the full nature of the crimes prosecuted. In short, there are circumstances in which conspiracy to defraud will be used by the prosecution for sentencing purposes.
	Also included within this second category are admissibility matters, which, again, were not explored, at least with any intimacy, by the Law Commission. The noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General refers, particularly in paragraph 13, to circumstances where, under specific statutory accounts, trials might be severed, whereas, if the offence of conspiracy to defraud were used, a trial might embrace all the matters of alleged criminality that were put before the court by the prosecution.
	I make no judgment about whether it is appropriate or not to use sentencing and admissibility reasons to retain conspiracy to defraud, because, like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I am content that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General should have his three years to see how these matters progress. But, in replying on the contents of the document, I would be most grateful if the noble and learned Lord could just glance at those three paragraphs and, perhaps, unpack what is said in them.
	I am particularly grateful for the way in which the noble and learned Lord has set out his future intentions in paragraph 10. The case lawyer, first of all, will consider and set out in writing why it would be appropriate for the common-law offence to be used; then, that judgment will be looked at again and reinforced, or otherwise, by the supervising lawyer. That seems an eminently sensible and reassuring way in which to progress.
	I also note in paragraph 11 that the noble and learned Lord has stated that the information from the records of the case officer or the supervising officer "will be collected retrospectively"—those are his words—and then reviewed in 2009. At that point the noble and learned Lord will take a view on where we stand with regard to the offence—whether we need to continue with it as it is at the moment, or in some different form, or whether we can satisfactorily dispense with it.
	Despite the fact that I have asked the noble and learned Lord these questions, I would not want him to think anything other than that I find this document most useful.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken. In the passage of the Bill so far, we have had quite a thorough discussion of the circumstances in which—in the Government's view, in my view and in that of prosecutors—it would be appropriate to continue to use the common-law conspiracy to defraud. We have had those discussions to some extent outside the House, too; I referred on the last occasion that we debated this matter to a meeting that took place at which prosecutors were available, and I set out examples in a letter that I sent to noble Lords, including both noble Lords who have spoken—the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Kingsland.
	I also said, when we had a particularly valuable debate on this matter on Report, that the focus on this issue was a result of the inquiry that had been made through observations in the House at Second Reading and in Committee. Those observations were very helpful in focusing attention on the merits of the proposal. I am grateful also to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, who also took an important part in this debate, although he is not in his place now. I said then that the focus on this issue had left me more persuaded rather than less that it was right to retain the common-law offence of conspiracy to defraud. During discussions both inside and outside the House, I broadly identified the circumstances in which I was persuaded that, at least for the time being, it was right to keep the common-law offence of conspiracy to defraud. That is reflected in the draft working guidance that I sent to noble Lords and to which they have spoken. I am grateful for the warm words that they used about it.
	Let me take up the invitation of the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland and Lord Goodhart, to say a little bit more. First, this is working guidance, which has been considered with the directors of the prosecuting authorities, who agree with its content. I propose to issue final guidance around the time of Royal Assent—obviously, I will ensure that noble Lords have it at that stage and I will place copies in the Libraries of both Houses. The guidance will then be issued to the directors of the prosecuting authorities: the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office, the Revenue and Customs Prosecuting Office and what we call the Whitehall prosecutors—other government prosecutors who do not fall into any of those three offices. I intend the guidance to apply to all of them. They will probably want at least the larger offices to issue their own more detailed guidelines, but those will be based on my guidance.
	What, then, does the guidance say? As the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has noted, it sets out a little of the background. It then explains the process that we intend to follow. As I said on Report, one of the merits of the approach that I am adopting in this guidance, which is to require prosecutors to record their reasons for using the common-law offence, is that it will both focus their attention on why they are doing it and give us a record that we can look at afterwards to see whether we have got this right.
	The guidance will give my view, as in paragraph 9 of the draft, that common-law charges may still be appropriate in two sorts of cases, or in the types of cases set out in paragraphs 12 to 15. First, there are those that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, has identified as cases where that approach is desirable for sentencing purposes. I think that that is shorthand; it is rather narrow in its description. In fact, that category covers cases where the interests of justice can be served only by presenting to a court an overall picture that cannot be achieved by charging a series of substantive offences or statutory conspiracy. On earlier occasions, I have given examples of where that may be, and the guidance does that as well. The second category covers cases where, as the noble Lord rightly identified, the conduct is such that it can only be prosecuted as conspiracy to defraud. The purpose of the guidance is therefore to give that guidance.
	I turn to the status of the document. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has tabled his amendment. I noted without any surprise his indication that he did not intend to ask the House to divide on it, and he in turn will not be surprised to learn that I would not have thought the amendment was necessary. I issue guidance and guidelines, as my predecessors have done, on a number of topics. Recently, I have done so regarding disclosure of documents about the acceptance of pleas, and there have also been Attorney-General's guidelines on other matters such as asking jurors to stand by. I would not think it at all necessary for such guidance to have the backing of statutory authority for it to be followed by prosecutors; I know of no problem in that respect. As it happens, I have quite a powerful weapon to enforce it myself: the ability to intervene in any case and to stop that case using my powers of noli prosequi if I were not satisfied with the way in which the prosecuting authority was acting. That is a longstop, but it is effective.
	I hope that I have adequately addressed the questions put to me by both noble Lords. I note that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment on that basis, and I invite him so to do.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General for what he has said. It is useful to get this matter on the record, because we have had a serious debate on it, as I think appropriate for any case in which a recommendation of the Law Commission is not accepted by the Government. For reasons that I find wholly understandable, the matter will now be in effect deferred for some three years, by which time, I hope, evidence will have become available as to whether the retention of this offence is desirable. As I hope I have made clear throughout, my only intention in moving this amendment was to obtain such a statement from the noble and learned Lord. This amendment has now served its purpose, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
	Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Goldsmith.)
	On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Deepcut Review

Lord Drayson: My Lords, with permission, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces earlier today in another place. The Statement is as follows:
	"On 15 December 2004, I informed the House that I had commissioned a review into the circumstances surrounding the deaths of four young soldiers at Princess Royal Barracks, Deepcut, during the period 1995 to 2002. As I told the House then, I was aware that its scope and nature may not satisfy all those—Members of this House included—who have been calling for a formal public inquiry into combat deaths in the Armed Forces, and in particular the four deaths at Deepcut. I said that by concentrating on the circumstances of the four deaths, the review would focus on the issue at the heart of current public concern.
	"The review has been undertaken by the distinguished human rights lawyer Mr Nicholas Blake QC and is now complete. Copies will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
	"This morning the families had the benefit of a briefing by Mr Blake on his conclusions. I know that this will be another difficult day for them; the passage of time, in such sad circumstances, does little to lessen the pain. I hope that they will find at least that Mr Blake has addressed carefully and sensitively the questions that have troubled them. I acknowledge the dignity with which they have conducted themselves over this long period.
	"I am grateful to Mr Blake for the thorough and professional way in which he has approached his task. In conducting his review he has had the full co-operation of the Ministry of Defence. He has had full and unrestricted access to our records, and all serving soldiers were encouraged to help the review in any way they could. I am satisfied that this report, running to 416 pages plus annexes, represents an independent, objective and comprehensive analysis of all matters that have a bearing on the four deaths, and that Mr Blake has not been constrained by his terms of reference. Importantly, he has been able to tackle the wider issues.
	"There were three issues around which much comment had been made about events at Deepcut: the alleged suspicious circumstances of the deaths; a claimed culture of bullying; and the need for a formal public inquiry. I am pleased to note that Mr Blake makes substantial findings on all three points.
	"First, Mr Blake has concluded that, on the balance of probabilities, the deaths of Sean Benton, Cheryl James and Geoff Gray at Deepcut were self-inflicted. Given the recent coroner's inquest into the death of James Collinson, he understandably refrains from reaching any conclusion on that particular death. However, he does comment that the opportunity for self-infliction was afforded by the policy of frequently assigning trainees to guard duty at Deepcut, unsupervised by experienced soldiers. The review found a number of factors that may have contributed to their unhappiness and may have made them more susceptible to self-harm. The review considers that,
	"although the Army did not cause any of the deaths",
	there were institutional failures to identify potential sources of risk and to subsequently address them.
	"On the question of bullying, Mr Blake states that there is no evidence that any of the trainees were bullied to death. However, he accepts that some trainees at Deepcut—and, at that, probably only a small minority—experienced harassment, discrimination and oppressive behaviour. Those who did not complain appear to have had little confidence that the system could or would address their grievances. These are important criticisms, which will be addressed.
	"Finally, on the question of a public inquiry, as I indicated in my response to the earlier HCDC report on this, I did not consider that a formal public inquiry was required. The HCDC was of a similar view. Mr Blake, in a carefully reasoned examination of the arguments for such an approach, has concluded that a public inquiry into the immediate or broader circumstances surrounding these deaths is not necessary. I reaffirm my earlier position and concur with Mr Blake's conclusion.
	"This review, taken alongside the other inquiries and inquests into the deaths at Deepcut, has set out with great clarity the circumstances of the four deaths and the context in which they occurred. We now need to move on and to take forward the changes that are required. We accept Mr Blake's conclusions and welcome the opportunity to address his recommendations. We accept that there have been shortcomings, and we will do all we can to address them.
	"Although the purpose of the review was not to attribute blame, Mr Blake has described a disturbing catalogue of allegations of misconduct at the relevant times. The Army authorities will carefully examine the report to see whether there is any indication of professional misconduct or negligence that might make administrative action appropriate. In addition, any matters that suggest that a disciplinary offence may have been committed will be referred to the Royal Military Police for further investigation. We will also have to take into account the overall training environment in which our personnel were working, and the constraints faced by those in the command chain.
	"Mr Blake understands the importance, particularly for the Army, of recruiting under-18s, but he has highlighted weaknesses with regard to their appropriate care. This is an issue that we are alive to, and we are improving the standard of care and support afforded to young recruits. For example, trainees' surveys and focus groups have been established, and a note of guidance for all commanding officers covering all aspects relating to working with under-18s has been produced. Furthermore, Mr Blake commends in particular the specialist training regimes for 16 year-olds established at the Army Training Regiment, Bassingbourn, and the Army Foundation College, Harrogate. But there is clearly still more to do, especially in extending best practices such as these establishments, and we are committed to implementing such changes as far and as quickly as we can.
	"The quality of our Armed Forces and the professional way in which they were, and are, meeting their operational commitments is evidence of the quality of military training, and I pay tribute to this without hesitation. The report describes the British Army as a unique and extraordinary institution which, for the past decade or more, has been sent on a wide variety of operational deployments in many parts of the world, to great personal danger and regular personal sacrifice.
	"The report notes that many of the young people who are, or were, accepted as recruits into the Army have had very challenging lives as children; a high proportion are from single-parent homes; some had left school with no qualifications; many had deficits in basic skills. The report comments that it is a remarkable challenge to turn these young people into effective soldiers forming part of a disciplined and interdependent team. It is worth noting that Deepcut alone sent approximately 10,000 trainees into the field Army during the period covered by the review.
	"However, the number of young people, particularly those under 18, whom the services employ places particular responsibilities on us to recognise their potential vulnerability. We are committed to improving the way in which all our recruits are trained, developed and looked after. In view of this, and in the light of the recommendations made in recent reports by the House of Commons Defence Committee and the Adult Learning Inspectorate, work has already been, and continues to be, done to make changes for the better.
	"As in society as a whole, bullying, harassment and other inappropriate behaviour can never be totally eliminated in the Armed Forces. But it is essential that we establish an environment in which bullying is wholly unacceptable. At every stage of their training and careers, it is made very clear to personnel that bullying and harassment in any form is not tolerated and that it is part of their duty, and a function of leadership, to eliminate it.
	"It is a sad and unfortunate fact, again just as in wider society, that the Armed Forces will never be able to eradicate the tragic incidence of suicide or self-harm. But the risks can be reduced to a minimum by careful management, pragmatic policies and better understanding, knowledge and education. As the Blake review makes clear,
	'Every Officer, NCO, civilian instructor and trainee should be alert to any sign of abuse and be required to report it through the chain of Command, so prompt and effective action can be taken'.
	"The Armed Forces Bill, currently being scrutinised by a Select Committee of this House, contains proposals to streamline the complaints redress system, including provision for an independent element. Also, the Bill will consider aspects of the procedures applying to boards of inquiry. The review makes recommendations in these two important areas. We will give full consideration to those recommendations, and the Bill gives us the opportunity to implement any changes deemed appropriate.
	"The report has identified areas in the training environment, especially between 1995 and 2002, that required improvement. It cites examples of inappropriate behaviour that should not have taken place. It also identifies areas where we can, and should, improve the way in which we manage the young people for whom we are responsible, and we accept these observations. We now need to look at every one of Mr Blake's 34 detailed recommendations to see how they should best be taken forward to address the weaknesses identified as quickly and as effectively as possible. I also urge honourable and right honourable Members to take time to analyse Mr Blake's report in full prior to forming their own opinions.
	"Mr Blake has given us a detailed and painstaking report of considerable substance. I am confident that it will provide further impetus for improvement. I can assure the House of my determination to deal with the issues he has raised, and I undertake to provide a detailed formal written response to the House on all the recommendations. I am determined to ensure that everything possible is done to prevent similar tragedies occurring in the future. I have enormous confidence in the dedicated men and women working as instructors in our training organisation. I want to make sure that they have the support, resources and facilities they need to pursue excellence. The trained young men and women they produce lie at the very core of how we deliver on the defence interests of this country. Their efforts have to be matched by commitment from the very top of the MoD.
	"Mr Blake concluded his report with his profound condolences to each of the families concerned. On behalf of the Ministry of Defence, I add my condolences".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. The Blake review is a substantial document and will require detailed study, but we must not lose sight of the fact that it was necessary because of the deaths of four young recruits. These deaths were personal tragedies, and the hearts of all noble Lords will go out to their parents and families.
	Like previous reports, the Blake review will have wider implications for our Armed Forces, the way they train their recruits and the MoD's duty of care. These issues are complex because they require a difficult balance. On the one hand, the Army needs individuals who will put themselves in the line of fire to protect all of us, and that inevitably requires a robust and tough training environment and a culture quite unlike that of civilian life. On the other hand, the Army has a duty of care to each individual under its command.
	Mr Blake makes a number of important points. He finds that the Army did not cause the deaths of the three recruits whose cases he studied, although he identifies a number of "institutional failures" in the Army. Despite calls for a public inquiry, he believes that no useful purpose will be served by holding one. He concludes that no new reliable evidence as to how the four trainees met their deaths is likely to be available. We recognise that that will come as a disappointment to the families, but Mr Blake's decision confirms the view that we have taken all along.
	The review demonstrates that mistakes were made in the MoD's duty of care for the young recruits in its charge and opportunities missed in dealing with the problems at the base. Between 1988 and 2002, seven inquiries into MoD training identified a number of the problem areas and shortfalls in provision. However, the MoD failed to act on these. The defence budget was grossly overstretched, and too often training seemed like an easy source of savings and a low priority for funding and improvements.
	The review is particularly critical of the levels of supervision at Deepcut, which in some cases were as bad as 1:60. In a Westminster Hall debate on 27 April 2004, the Secretary of State announced a further 179 instructors and a supervisory ratio target of 1:38 in all phase 1 and phase 2 training establishments. Can the Minister confirm that this target of 1:38 has been met?
	The review is very critical of the poor accommodation and the sanitary and washing facilities available. What improvements has the MoD made in this very important area?
	We are aware that two of these recruits had medical records of self-harm prior to recruitment, unknown to the MoD. What is the MoD doing to identify vulnerable recruits on entry into the service? Is there sufficient psychological profiling of potential recruits, and will the Minister's department consider automatic availability of NHS medical records prior to a recruitment decision? What improvements have been made to the vetting procedure of instructors following the conviction of Leslie Skinner in December 2004 for indecent assault on four young recruits? Problems have been identified arising from the break between phase 1 and phase 2 training. What plans do the Government have to restructure the training programme to reduce the problems experienced by soldiers awaiting trade training?
	We welcome the recognition in the Statement of the need to spread and sustain best practice in relation to young soldiers beyond Deepcut—Bassingbourn and the Army Foundation College at Harrogate were both mentioned. We welcome the recognition that it would be appropriate to amend the Armed Forces Bill to meet some of the points identified by Mr Blake, and the Government can look to the Opposition to give a fair wind to such amendments.
	The Ministry of Defence and the Army are clearly embarked on a number of sensible measures to help prevent a recurrence of such failings. I hope that the Minster will continue to report regularly to this House that the better practices are in full operation, and that they have not been allowed to slide back as the memories of what did and did not happen at Deepcut slide back into the past.

Lord Garden: My Lords, I thank the Minister both for early sight of the Statement and the opportunity to have access to the report at the Ministry of Defence early this morning. Our sympathy is also with the families of these young soldiers, who died so early in their lives.
	Time will not allow us to deal with each of the 34 important recommendations in the Blake review, just as the Statement talks only broadly about them. When are we going to get this full report back? We cannot wait years to hear the Ministry of Defence's response. I trust that it will be within, for example, three months.
	As we have heard, the review does not recommend a further public inquiry, given that it does not believe that more evidence will emerge at this stage. It does, however, recommend disclosure of information to the families, among other measures. It is too early to know how the families, who have suffered so much, will react. However, if the recommendations of the report in this section are fully implemented, closure may be achieved. We will have to wait to see how the police and the Government react to the recommendations.
	A number of important recommendations could be implemented by Ministry of Defence Ministers now. Do they intend to immediately implement them in full? The measures range widely, from the living conditions, supervisory arrangements, instructor vetting and training and investigation arrangements, through to complaints procedures. We have raised many of these issues on many occasions. It is always a question of priority for resources.
	Will the Minister assure us that under-18 year-olds in training are not to be put at risk through losing out in the resource priorities battle within the defence programme? Will he immediately implement the recommendation for separate training facilities for those aged 16? Will the poor accommodation, identified as a factor, be upgraded now and not left to rot like so much of the rest of the defence estate? Will the measures to vet and train instructors be implemented now, for the protection of young people? Will the recommendations regarding the Military Police be implemented? Here, again, we have concerns about resources, just as we recently had over the police in Iraq. In particular, will the Minister undertake to implement recommendation 24—that the Royal Military Police be brought formally under Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary?
	In this brief opportunity to focus on the issues raised by Deepcut, I wish to finish with two major areas. First, in recommendation 3, Blake examines whether it is right that the UK is one of the few countries which recruits child soldiers—that is, those under 18. We have had international criticism for this policy. The review says that recruiting needs are not a satisfactory justification, but goes on to say that the policy is justified given the inadequacies of education and training in the UK's civilian system. As long as the education benefits outweigh the downside of having child soldiers, the report requires a number of special safeguards: the separation of 16 year-olds; a right to resign if still under training, even if past your 18th birthday by the time you get there; and, most importantly—I ask for the Minister's comments and assurance on this—that no posting to the field army will occur before the age of 18. Do the Government intend to implement these immediately?
	Finally, recommendation 26 calls for the establishment of a commissioner of military complaints—an Armed Forces ombudsman for all the Armed Forces, not just trainees. The Armed Forces Bill has a watered-down proposal for an independent element in redress procedures. The Blake review has a much more useful recommendation, which could address the growing concern among the Armed Forces that their views on their conditions are just ignored. I suggest to the Minister that this is the opportunity to take an imaginative approach. Do the Government intend to take up that proposal in the Armed Forces Bill?
	If any good is to come from these terrible, tragic events at Deepcut, the Ministry of Defence needs to respond and transfer all the necessary resources to make its under-18 training regime safe, otherwise it needs to consider whether it can continue to recruit such young people into the army.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am grateful for the tone taken by the noble Lords opposite in commenting on the Blake review. I stress that there is a complete commitment from the top of the Ministry of Defence and throughout the organisation to learn the lessons from the Blake review. It is right that we take the time to reflect fully on the recommendations of this detailed and comprehensive review to ensure that the implementation is done properly. Therefore, it is not appropriate for me to give commitments in this House today to implement the recommendations, but I give a commitment that I and my ministerial team will look at and review the Blake recommendations with speed. I shall answer directly noble Lords' questions on the timescale for reporting back. Consistent with making sure that when we report back we are able to do so in a way that focuses on implementation, we will report back quickly—within months.
	With regard to the context in which the Blake review has taken place, it is important for us to note that a considerable amount has already been done by the Ministry of Defence and, particularly, by the British Army throughout the past seven years. Indeed, things were already being done prior to 1995. None the less, Blake shows that despite the significant improvements that have been made, which the report recognised, they have not gone far enough. More needs to be done. To give a specific example of what has been done already, I can say that considerable investment has gone into living accommodation. If people were to visit Deepcut today they would find, compared with five years ago, a significant improvement in the facilities. However, going forward from here, it is right to focus on the pace at which implementation takes place. I make a commitment to the House to report back to it regularly on the pace of that implementation. It is vital for us to show that we are properly putting people before equipment, that we have the right balance within our defence budget and that, consistent with the tempo and challenge of operations that we undertake within the defence budget, we put people first. There are clearly no better examples of people who should be put first than the youngest members of the Armed Forces, the trainees coming into them.
	It is important for me to give that context to our response. We are working on the specifics of matters such as medical record disclosure—which was one of Blake's recommendations—and improvements in vetting procedures. We need to look in detail at how we can implement them properly. I know that in relation to vetting procedures we would like to go further with Criminal Records Bureau checks, but are unable to do so under the current legislation in respect of people already in full-time employment, rather than those applying for employment. We are having discussions with the Home Office about what can be done to develop legislation to enable us to go further.
	We are restructuring our training programme, which the noble Lord asked for. We must recognise the challenge that the Army faces in phase 2 training. Deepcut is a phase 2 training establishment where soldiers, having been through their basic training, go through their trade training, which can take several years to complete. It is a challenge for us to ensure that during that process their motivation is maintained for a considerable period. One of our innovations is to take people from the training establishment and have them spend short periods with the field army to maintain their motivation and recycle that trade training.
	Levels of appropriate supervision depend on the activities undertaken and the particular factors at each training establishment. Training establishments carry out different functions. Noble Lords have mentioned that Blake describes the excellent facilities provided at Bassingbourn and Harrogate. These clearly are good models which we know are working, so we have achieved improvements but have further to go.
	We accept that levels of supervision have been unacceptable in the past, and are making the improvements that need to be implemented now. We use the commanding officers' risk assessment guidelines to determine the appropriate levels, as well as to ensure that the focus on the training of instructors is improved. I would be happy to provide further reports to the House as we make progress. We expect to be able to report on all the recommendations made by Blake to the House in months, but it is important, as noble Lords have requested, that that is maintained subsequently with regular updates.

Lord Bramall: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement given in another place. Just as importantly, I most sincerely add my condolences to the families of those young soldiers who lost their lives in such tragic circumstances. I speak with some personal experience in these matters in that I commanded a training company of just such young recruits 50 years ago—in those what I suppose might be described as rather less enlightened days as far as managing young soldiers is concerned. But even then, had I had one such loss of life among my recruits, let alone four in seven years, I would have been horrified and felt that it was in some way a direct reflection on me and on my officers' supervision and awareness of what was going on.
	However, this most thorough, detailed and even copious report, on which I congratulate Mr Nicholas Blake and which was dealt with only in outline in the Statement, largely allays our worst fears that these young people lost their lives by means other than their own hand, or that any bullying, abuse and harassment had directly contributed to their state of mind. I believe that all noble Lords will feel that that is a matter of great relief in a society in which oppressive leadership—not abuse, but oppressive leadership—by NCOs over trainees is sometimes considered to be, and may indeed have to be, part and parcel of "making men"—I use that in its wider sense—out of young recruits from uncertain and often unhelpful backgrounds.
	As the Minister said, however, there are things that could be, need to be, and one hopes now are being done better. I refer to standards of accommodation, what the Army is pleased to call "the ablutions"; welfare for the recruit; more intelligent, sympathetic and better supervision of young recruits away from home for the first time; better qualified and trained instructors; and better redress of grievances—which I suggest should be made direct to the commanding officer. When I was the commanding officer of a battalion I always insisted—and it took a bit of doing because some of the sergeant-majors did not always like it—that grievances came direct to the commanding officer. I think that that is very important. And, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, said, we need establishments—which of course is a budgetary matter—that are large enough to allow more supervision particularly by officers. That might have made all the difference.
	All of those matters are part and parcel of good leadership and man-management and necessary for the infusion of a high morale in which discipline is as much caught by example as imposed from outside. I am sure that those tragic happenings at Deepcut will have been a salutary reminder that if you want high morale and a sense of well-being, as opposed to the opposite, in those below you, there can be no complacency about the standards of leadership and the encouragement and example that they bring.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall, for the points that he has made. With his deep experience, he knows exactly the challenges that we face. He has pointed out most clearly that behaviour involving bullying or harassment is completely unacceptable. It has been unacceptable within the British Army; it will continue to be unacceptable in the British Army. He was extremely clear and helpful.

Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that although the report contains constructive suggestions which I hope will be pursued vigorously by the Government, I believe that it made a serious error of judgment—so does everyone else to whom I have spoken—in failing to support a public inquiry? In my view, a judicial public inquiry is crucial: first, because it is the only real way to find out what actually happened; and, secondly, because I believe that the families are entitled to it after suffering so much. My noble friend has said: "Let us move on". I can assure him as secretary of the All-Party Group on Army Deaths and as someone in close touch with the families that there is no chance of moving on while there is no judicial public inquiry. The families are, understandably, so upset, so determined, so anxious, so dedicated and so frustrated that this will never go away until we get a judicial public inquiry.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I completely understand the points that my noble friend has so clearly expressed and recognise the real concern that exists, not least among the families concerned but more generally about this matter. However, as the report concluded, on the basis of the current evidence, a public inquiry is not necessary. We share that view and, given the extensive investigations that have already taken place, see no public or service interest in pursuing a public inquiry. We believe that the important thing now is to move on in the sense of making sure that we properly implement the learning that comes out of the review as fully as possible to provide the best welfare that we can for our young trainees as quickly as possible.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I add my condolences to those that have already been expressed. To hear the Statement and the debate cannot make any of us feel very good. I pick up the issue to which the Minister has just referred: a public inquiry. I entirely understand that Mr Blake has concluded that that would not be helpful in this particular set of tragic incidents. However, I think that there is a need for some public reflection on the recruitment of under-18s into the armed services and some public reflection on the fact that we are likely to recruit a disproportionate number of young people with very few life choices open to them. That in itself is a kind of coercion. I am not suggesting it is real coercion, but it is a kind of coercion to hold out to people the possibility of entering a career that is fundamentally an adult choice when they do not have many life choices open to them due to the factors highlighted in Mr Blake's report and in the Statement.
	I suggest to the Minister that there is an urgent need to reflect publicly and openly on whether we as a society feel comfortable with the recruitment of under-18s into the armed services. If we do feel comfortable about it, we need to consider with passion as well as prudence how we protect particularly those who may have had very few life choices and who have therefore found themselves in a situation the demands of which they may not have fully understood.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for making those points. I am particularly grateful for his point about the need for reflection. We absolutely agree, which is why we believe in taking the time to reflect fully on the recommendations made by Blake, properly thinking through the conclusions following that reflection, which will be in the form of a public discussion, and ensuring that implementation following that reflection is full and thorough.
	I should also stress that in considering, as we should, the concerns that have been expressed about the welfare of young people and the points made about life choices, we should not forget the tremendous job done by the services, and by the British Army in particular, in the 12 weeks from joining the Army to the completion of phase 1 basic training, and the transformation in these young people. Anyone who has experienced a passing-out parade will see the miracle that can happen. Thousands of young people who pass safely through the hands of the Army go on to make a tremendous contribution to us—their country. It can make a positive change to their lives—a real change for the better. We should not lose sight of that in our proper concern for the lessons that need to be learnt when things go wrong, as they clearly have in these cases.

Lord Biffen: My Lords, I accept at once the Minister's advice that we should have a measured debate about the Blake review, but may I echo deferentially the points that were made so powerfully by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Bramall? Whatever institutional changes will be proposed and whatever institutional arrangements, which have been very unsatisfactory in the past, are made, if, as the Minister said, there was a culture of bullying and harassment—a disturbing catalogue—that must have been known to the officer class, which has the responsibility. Unless and until that can be remedied, so much else is bound to be subject to some anxiety, because that is the heart of the great difficulty. There now needs to be a very serious reconsideration of the relationship between officers and their men.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, it is important to stress that what we have seen of the conclusions of the Blake review does not indicate that harassment and bullying have been widespread in the way the noble Lord describes, but there have been cases of harassment and bullying, which have been described. We need to reinforce the efforts that we have been making and will continue to make to root this out of the British Armed Forces. As the noble and gallant Lord has said, this has never been acceptable in the British Armed Forces. It is not acceptable today. Clearly we have to work much harder to ensure that it is rooted out.

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I would like very much to associate myself with all the remarks made by my noble and gallant friend Lord Bramall. He had the experience of commanding soldiers at a training depot. At the same depot, I had the experience of commanding child soldiers, including, at that time, some 15 year-olds. I remember the experience well. It was rather like commanding a ticking time-bomb in many ways, but you had to adopt different techniques to motivate them and to ensure that they were properly supervised.
	That is not the purpose of what I wanted to say. I have found that there are certain parallels in the report and the inquiry with suicides in prison. We have devoted a great deal of attention to these in your Lordships' House. I am very pleased to see in the report the clear recommendation that the impetus to make certain that conditions and treatment are right should come from the very top. That must start with Ministers and go all the way down. I was delighted to see that.
	The press and many of the public have regarded the fact that these four deaths took place at Deepcut as an indication of a "conspiracy" at Deepcut. I remember exactly the same suspicion about HMP Brixton following the suicides of five Irish prisoners. Immediately there was suspicion that something was going on against Irish people as opposed to the fact that these were sad and random affairs. Each suicide needed investigation because each had separate circumstances. There is a great danger of trying to make a generalisation when that may not apply.
	The most important point, which I do not yet see recognised in the report, is the question of time. A week ago I saw the parents of a young man who had committed suicide in a prison four and a half years ago. The inquest has only just taken place. Imagine what the family have been through in that time. One of the problems of this inquiry is again that the families have been waiting an enormously long time to hear the outcome. I therefore ask the Minister whether he will, when he goes through the recommendations, consider the word "time", see what can be done to speed up the inquiry process and make certain that the families particularly affected are given the facts as soon as possible to help them come to terms with their tragic bereavement.

Lord Drayson: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the points that he has made with his wide experience of these matters. It is important for us to make the read-across to the experience in the prison community as we review the recommendations coming out of the Blake report. We must ensure that any remedies which have worked well in the experience of the Home Office are applied within the Ministry of Defence.
	I agree with the noble Lord that when there is a statistically random cluster—which I have experienced in my work in the medical field—it is psychologically attractive to draw conclusions. But it is clear from the review that that was not the case here. None the less, one death is one too many. We are not complacent about learning the lessons from this review, ensuring that these people have not died in vain, and robustly implementing the changes while taking into account, as the noble Lord says, the importance of time. It is important for us to look at these recommendations and to come back to the House in a few months with our responses. We should also ensure that we as Ministers make the right decisions on prioritisation of investment which will allow the changes to be implemented properly, to make a real difference in the timescale that is clearly needed.

Lord Moonie: My Lords, the incidence of suicide among under-25s serving in the Army is worryingly higher than it is in the general population; it is the only part of the Armed Forces where that is the case. Will my noble friend consider two points? First, it is due partly to the ease of access to live ammunition and an easy means of disposing with oneself. Secondly, what happened to the confidential independent hotline that the Armed Forces used to operate through the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association? I understand that that was superseded by a hotline run by the chain of command, which, frankly, I do not think is acceptable. Lastly, what happened to the inquiry that I instituted into suicide four years ago?

Lord Drayson: My Lords, my noble friend is correct to point out that the rate of suicide among under-20s is higher in certain subsets of the community and the general population, particularly within the British Army when compared with the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force. Encouragingly, there has in past years been a clear downward trend in the rate and significant improvement. There is now no statistical difference in the suicide rate among under-20s in the general population and that among those in the Armed Forces.
	I do not know the position regarding the SSAFA charitable helpline which my noble friend mentions. I shall look into it and write to him. But I can confirm that the Ministry of Defence operates an increasing number of innovative approaches to ensure that people have access to mechanisms enabling them to report abuse, the most recent one being a confidential texting service. We are making available considerable additional resources to provide people with modern and easy ways to report abuse. I also stress that we regard it as an essential part of leadership that anyone who sees abuse taking place should regard it as incumbent on themselves to report it and make sure that something is done about it.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am afraid that we are now in the 21st minute and our time is up.
	I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure. The time at which the Sitting will be resumed will be displayed on the Annunciators. It will not be before 5 pm.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 4.42 to 5 pm.]

Identity Cards Bill

A message was brought from the Commons, That they do not insist on certain amendments to the Identity Cards Bill to which your Lordships have disagreed and they disagree to the remaining amendments, for which disagreement they have assigned their reason.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons message be considered forthwith.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	22J Clause 5, page 4, line 44, leave out from "individual" to end of line 4 on page 5 and insert—
	"(a) if the individual is not already entered in the Register, his application for a designated document must include or be accompanied by an application by that individual to be entered in the Register unless he has stated in or with his application for a designated document that he does not wish to apply to be entered in the Register;
	(b) if the individual is already entered in the Register, his application for a designated document must either state that he is already entered in the Register and confirm the contents of his entry or state that he is entered in the Register and confirm the contents of his entry subject to the changes notified in the application."
	22K Clause 8, page 8, line 2, after "document" insert "in which he has not included or which is not accompanied by a statement in accordance with section 5(2) that he does not wish to be entered in the Register"

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 22J and 22K in lieu, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 22JA and 22L.
	I note that the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, is not yet in his place. However, I wish to speak to Motion A1 standing in his name. I see that the noble Lord has now reached his place. In the best traditions of the House, he is seeking to reach an acceptable compromise in tabling Amendments Nos. 22M, 22N and 22O in lieu. I, on behalf of the Government, will urge my colleagues to support his Motion.
	The Commons earlier today reaffirmed their view, for the fifth time, that those applying for a designated document should have their details entered on the national identity register and be issued with an ID card. As your Lordships are aware, this has been fundamental to the Government's approach in implementing the identity cards scheme, going back to our very first consultation exercise in 2002. That approach continued in the policy announcement in 2003, the draft Bill scrutinised by the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee in 2004, the Bill debated before the election, the Government's manifesto commitment, which we established yesterday was clearly understood—at least at the time—by the Liberal Democrats, and all our subsequent debates.
	As I said yesterday, during our debates we have conceded on many points. We have moved and moved and moved again, to the point where it is hard to see what more the Government can give. I am grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, has persevered in his honourable attempts to find a way somewhere between "must" and "may".
	The noble Lord's Motion preserves the integrity of the national identity register by ensuring that the details of all applicants for designated documents will be entered in the national identity register, an issue which, as I have explained on a number of occasions to the House, is key and central to the Government's delivery of the process. This will mean that they will all be afforded the protection that this will provide from identity theft. It will also provide the wider benefits to society by ensuring that attempts by people to establish multiple identities will be more easily detected.
	Once the passport becomes the designated document, the noble Lord's amendment provides for a time-limited opt-out for people applying for passports to be issued with an identity card as well. I share the noble Lord's view that few people will opt out. For those who do, while they will not be able to prove their identity securely in a range of transactions with public and private sector organisations, they will also not be required to inform the authorities of changes in prescribed details such as their address; that obligation applies only to those to whom the ID card has been issued. As this has been one point that has appeared to cause some noble Lords concern, I hope that they will take this into account when deciding whether or not to support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, today.
	If we are to secure value for money in the procurement process and obtain the full benefits of the scheme over time, there has to be certainty about the number of people registered and the proportion of people who hold ID cards. The noble Lord's amendment therefore sensibly sets a time limit on when the opt-out from being issued with an identity card would end. While the date of 1 January 2010 will add a degree of uncertainty to the Government's plans for implementing the scheme, this will, we hope, be manageable. I note that a number of noble Lords suggested the inclusion of a date yesterday. The debate has ranged around that issue. The date proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, strikes a sensible compromise and is acceptable to the Government.
	I have to confess that I have mixed feelings about our long and many debates on this Bill. In many respects, this House has performed its duty admirably in improving the Bill. But its actions in holding out against the clearly expressed wishes of the elected Chamber have put at risk this House's reputation—

Noble Lords: Oh.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: That is something, my Lords, which we believe is of great importance.
	The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, however, will allow us to draw a line under the more disturbing elements of this episode. Should the House agree to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, the Government will accept it when the Bill returns to the House later today. We hope that we have found an honourable way of resolving the issue between the Houses and that we can restore comity between them.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 22J and 22K in lieu, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 22JA and 22L.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion, at end insert "but do propose Amendments Nos. 22M, 22N and 22O in lieu—
	22M Clause 8, Page 7, line 31, at end insert
	"but this subsection does not require an ID card to be issued as part of or together with a designated document issued on an application made in a case falling within subsection (7)(a) to (c)."
	22N Page 7, line 42, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 8 and insert—
	"(7) Where an individual who is not already the holder of an ID card makes an application to be issued with a designated document, his application must, in the prescribed manner, include an application by him to be issued with such a card unless—
	(a) it is being made before 1st January 2010;
	(b) the designated document applied for is a United Kingdom passport (within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77)); and
	(c) the application for that document contains a declaration by that individual that he does not wish to be issued with such a card."
	22O Clause 10, Page 9, line 13, leave out "who does not hold a valid ID card" and insert "in a case in which—
	(a) the individual does not already hold a valid ID card, and
	(b) the designated document is being issued otherwise than on an application made in a case falling within Section 8(7)(a) to (c),"

Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I was brought up on the principle, "If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try again". The noble Baroness made clear yesterday her objections to the amendments which I proposed then and which the House approved. She said that my amendments drove a coach and horses through the Government's proposals. I hope that, with my new amendment, I have taken the coach and horses off her lawn.
	The Minister has explained the differences between the two sets of amendments. Somebody who applies for a passport will continue to have to apply to be entered on to the national identity register, but will be able to opt out of applying for or receiving an identity card, with the consequences that the Minister described. A time limit—a sunset provision, if you like—means that that right to opt out will expire on 1 January 2010, unless some later legislation extends it—but that is not part of my contemplation today.
	I regret that the Government were unable to accept my amendments yesterday, which would have broken the link between the application for a passport and the application to be entered on to the national identity register, but I understand the advantages of protecting the integrity of the national identity register. I would have preferred a later cut-off date—perhaps 1 January 2011 or 30 June 2010—but I judged that the Government would not be prepared to accept the later date and, at this stage, I feel that the considerations to which the Minister has drawn attention apply with a special strength.
	If my amendments seem likely to command the acceptance of the Government, that will bring the exchanges of messages between the Commons and the Lords—the ping-pong, if you like—to a close and the Bill can proceed. That is a consummation devoutly to be wished. We have had several goes at it. The Government have moved—not quite as far as I would have wished—to compromise on these points. I therefore accept that compromise in the spirit in which it has been offered and move these amendments. I hope that they will command the assent of the House so that this Bill may proceed on to the statute book in due course. I beg to move.
	Moved, as an amendment to Motion A, at end insert "but do propose Amendments Nos. 22M, 22N and 22O in lieu".—(Lord Armstrong of Ilminster.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, for all his valuable work in finding a compromise; he has found one which the Government have today accepted. If anyone outside this House wanted an example of the value in our deliberations of those who sit on our Cross-Benches, they have only to look to his work on this matter.
	ID cards will be voluntary in the initial period of the scheme. That is the crucial issue: voluntary will mean voluntary. The Government get their national identity register. Noble Lords will know that I do not like that—I do not now and I never will—but I accept that the amendment breaks the bridge between the individual and the NIR. If you do not have an ID card, you are not using it and no audit trail is being left by you in the initial period. As the Minister has already said, a significant additional point is that one then does not have to follow all the rules about notifying changes of address under the ID cards scheme, an issue that occupied many happy or unhappy hours in Committee.
	The cut-off date is not our first choice. It could have come after the general election, which is what we would have much preferred, but if it is before it, I can assure noble Lords that it will be a campaigning point on these Benches and will certainly be referred to by noble Lords and by my honourable friends in another place.
	Can the Minister confirm, in her winding-up remarks, her previous assurances and those of her right honourable friend in another place that those who do not wish to be forced to have an ID card after the Government's now accepted date of 1 January 2010 will be able, prior to the designation of documents and prior to that date, to surrender their passports and obtain a new passport that has a full 10 years to run? I realise that the Home Office website has been updated, but the prose is still impenetrable.
	The amendment ensures that the option of avoiding having an ID card will not be available to foreign nationals. We understand the argument that the Government would not wish to be prevented from designating immigration documents in these matters. We do not see that as a fatal flaw to the amendment.
	I made it clear throughout all our proceedings in this House that we sought compromise on this core issue. We have always acted with restraint and care. This House was surely right to press the Government firmly on a matter which the Constitution Committee of this House said represents a fundamental change in the relationship between state and people—a fundamental change that was not set out clearly in the manifesto. I suspect that we shall have many a happy hour from now on discussing the various merits of that one page, clearly set out in the Government's manifesto, which obscured their real intent.
	The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, has shown us that we can find a sensible compromise on the promised rollout of the ID cards, as against the original compulsion that the Government had in mind. This is a pragmatic compromise—it is the nature of the real world that one has to be pragmatic. It is not our first choice, as compromises never are, but there should be a reasonable choice that will protect the interests of the people of this country. This is that reasonable choice, in my judgment. It is a convention of this House that one's vote follows one's voice, so if a Division is called on this matter I shall strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, first, I apologise for the absence of my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, who has been defeated not by the Government but by a very small virus. He very much regrets his inability to be with your Lordships at this time.
	We on these Benches oppose the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. The noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said yesterday that over the years this House has rightly grown in stature. Well, it has not always had the reputation that she describes. Yesterday, reference was made to Asquith and Churchill, and noble Lords would expect me to refer to Lloyd George, who said:
	"Every man has a House of Lords in his own head. Fears, prejudices, misconceptions—those are the peers, and they are hereditary".
	This House has come a long way since those days.
	But the present-day reputation of this House has been gained not by being cravenly subservient to a government party supported by 36 per cent of the voters in the last general election—22 per cent of the electorate—but by standing for the traditions of liberty and freedom which are at the heart of the British constitution. If there is a constitutional issue, as the Minister said yesterday, that is what it is.
	We were amused when, in these debates on 6 March, the noble Lord, Lord Gould said:
	"Sadly, it is now impossible to tell where the Conservative Benches end and the Liberal Democrat Benches begin".
	He used the word "courting", as I recall. He spoke, too, of,
	"a union designed to oppose measures that help our security, whatever the people say and whatever the other place decides".—[Official Report, 6/3/06; col. 557.]
	There are links in these two deep-rooted political traditions; we and the Conservatives both believe that the democratic state exists to protect the liberty of the citizen and that civil rights and political liberties are inalienable. It is to the enormous credit of this Government that in their early years they recognised those same principles in passing the Human Rights Act, which was a milestone in the history of this country.
	What, however, has happened since? The watchword is now "security". The philosopher Hobbes, in his 17th-century view of the state, started from the premise that the world is dangerous and filled with unknown enemies perpetually striving to do us harm, and that the only way to achieve security is to give up our freedom and liberty to a common power. This is what he said in his great work, Leviathan:
	"The only way to erect such a common power, as may be able to defend them from the invasion of foreigners, and the injuries of one another, and thereby to secure them in such sort as that by their own industry and by the fruits of the earth they may nourish themselves and live contentedly, is to confer all their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly of men, that may reduce all their wills, by plurality of voices, unto one will".
	In this authoritarian model of the state, it is the state, on the basis of secret information that it does not disclose, that defines the gravity of the threats to this country and to our security, and it is the state that determines what civil liberties it will grant us and to what degree it will do so.
	It is a grim philosophy, which in the last few years has underlain much of the Government's approach to legislation in this House: the terrorism bills, the criminal justice bills and now this Identity Cards Bill, where compulsion is the keynote. We have heard in the past day or two that the Government always meant to have compulsion. Why did they not say so? Why did they use the word "voluntary"? What is the initial period of voluntariness to which their manifesto undoubtedly refers?
	There are severe dangers. There have been cruel terrorist acts on our streets that have destroyed lives. If the Government had produced any evidence that identity cards would protect us from such dangers, we would freely consent to join a national database and to carry identity cards. That would be an exercise of freedom, not of compulsion. It is in resisting the threat to personal freedoms that this House has made its reputation. It was ridiculous for the Minister to say that we had put the reputation of this House at risk.
	The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, said yesterday that there is an issue of personal freedom that should not be brushed aside as being of no consequence. I pay tribute to him for his shrewd attempt yesterday to arrive at a compromise that the House could have supported as a whole. However, his compromise was not accepted, and what is objectionable in what is put before us now with the full support of the Government is that the applicant for a passport will still have to register on the national database. He may not take his identity card, but the organs of the state will have access to his records under this Bill. Information may be put on that national database referring to him. If you look at Clause 19, you will see how many organs of the state will have access to that information without his knowledge.
	We will not have it on these Benches. This is an issue of freedom and of personal liberty. Although I have paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, we cannot support him in the Lobbies tonight.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her comments about acceptance. I also warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, for moving his coach-and-four securely off my lawn. It enables us to come to a compromise. I have listened with great care to everything that has been said so eloquently from the Liberal Democrat Benches, and note with regret that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, is not in his place. We all wish him well.
	I can assure the noble Baroness that the comments on the surrender of passports, made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place and repeated by me in this House, remain true. It will be possible for those who wish to do that to do so before these provisions come in and before designation. That continues to be the case.
	Throughout, the Government have made clear the importance that we attach to the ability to designate documents. This amendment preserves that ability. It allows those who do not choose to have the benefit of the card not to do so. It is an honourable compromise. I wholeheartedly invite all Members of this House, including those who rest so delicately on the Liberal Democrat Benches, to join us in giving our assent to what is clearly a sensible and pragmatic way forward.

Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, I invite your Lordships to agree to this Motion. If the reputation of the House were at risk because of the repeated occasions when this measure had gone backwards and forwards along the Corridor, I think that we have redeemed our reputation by arriving at a sensible compromise between the Government, who wanted compulsion, and the degree of voluntariness which has been restored now.
	I greatly respect the principled sentiments which were expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, but those arguments are good arguments for not having an Identity Cards Bill at all, or not having a national identity register at all. We are past that point and are on the relatively narrow point of whether people who apply for passports should, first, be required to apply to go on the register and, secondly, be required to apply for identity cards.
	The Government, for their own reasons, wish to protect the integrity of the national register—as a former public servant I understand the considerations behind that—but they have been prepared to compromise on the issue of receiving or applying for identity cards. This brings back an element of personal freedom. That applies only to those who apply for passports. Although many of us agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, as I say, we are past that point in relation to this Bill. I therefore very much hope that the amendments I have tabled will provide a basis on which we can go further forward. It is in that spirit that I invite the House to agree to my Motion. I should like to take the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said Motion (A1) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 287; Not-Contents, 60.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.
	On Question, Whether Motion A, as amended, shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 234; Not-Contents, 56.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion A, as amended, agreed to accordingly.
	Bill returned to the Commons with amendments.

Violent Crime Reduction Bill

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
	The Government have achieved considerable success in recent years in reducing violent crime. The British Crime Survey shows that, since 1997, violent crime has fallen by 34 per cent. While that is clearly excellent news, it is no reason to assume that more should not be done.
	We know, for example, that according to the British Crime Survey just under half of all violent crime is believed to be alcohol related. Many of us will have witnessed in our own towns and city centres the disorder that often accompanies binge drinking. While much of this behaviour often amounts to relatively low-level offences, it can too frequently lead to serious, violent incidents.
	We also know that trends in violent crimes involving weapons will always be influenced by the availability of those weapons. That is why we must be constantly alert to shifts in criminal behaviour, and look to see what they tell us about the effectiveness of the legislative framework.
	This Bill recognises that there are areas of violent crime in which more can be done to assist the police and local authorities in making our communities safer. We are introducing new powers to challenge unacceptable behaviour, punish those who commit violent acts and stop weapons getting into the hands of those who would misuse them.
	The Bill benefited from much considered and helpful debate in the other place. The Government have been keen throughout to listen to arguments, respond to concerns and improve the Bill where we can. I am sure that this constructive approach will continue in your Lordships' House, and I look forward to some lively and instructive debate in the coming weeks, although I must confess that I hope it will be slightly less lively than that which we have just enjoyed.
	Part 1 introduces a range of innovative measures to tackle the problems associated with alcohol-related violence and disorder, which unfortunately is a highly visible part of the night-time economy. Most people drink responsibly, but the effect caused by those who do not is disproportionately damaging. In too many of our towns and cities, law-abiding citizens feel unable to enjoy a night out in safety. The British Crime Survey shows that nearly one in five of all violent incidents occur in or around pubs and clubs. That is a significant proportion, and much of it will be as a result of binge drinking.
	Responsibility for ending a culture in which people frequently drink to excess must ultimately lie with the individual. To hold individuals to account for their actions, we seek to introduce through the Bill a new civil order: the drinking banning order. It will be available to protect communities from the criminal or disorderly behaviour of an individual while they are under the influence of alcohol. Through this order, a court will be able to impose whatever prohibitions it believes necessary to protect others from this type of behaviour.
	The aim of the drinking banning order is really quite simple: we want to discourage unacceptable, alcohol-fuelled behaviour, and punish such behaviour when it occurs. In doing so, we want to protect innocent people from the harm caused by those who misuse alcohol.
	Your Lordships may be aware that when the Bill was in the other place, the Government undertook to consider the parallels with interventions to provide education and support to drink-driving offenders and whether similar interventions might be developed for those who are subject to drinking banning orders. I can confirm that we will bring forward amendments about that in Committee in this House. Those amendments will enable the courts to reduce the duration of a drinking banning order if individuals agree to undertake a course designed specifically to address their misuse of alcohol and their resultant behaviour, and then satisfactorily complete this course. I know from many of our debates that this House takes seriously the need to break the cycle of alcohol abuse.
	The Bill also provides a new power for the police to prevent alcohol-related disorder by issuing to an individual aged 16 or over a direction to leave a locality. If the presence of an individual in a particular place is likely to cause or contribute to alcohol-related crime or disorder, a police constable may issue that person with a direction to leave the locality and prohibit their return for up to 48 hours.
	Noble Lords will, I hope, be pleased to see that we have included an explicit necessity test in this provision, which ensures that this power can be used only where it is imperative for the police to intervene in a situation to prevent disorder or violence occurring or escalating. These measures focus on the individual and provide new tools for the police and local authorities to use in tackling unacceptable behaviour. However, it is clear that the alcohol industry and licensed premises also have an important role to play in tackling alcohol-related violence and disorder. We very much welcome the steps that the trade has taken to raise operating standards. The alcohol industry has published a comprehensive statement of principles and standards for the retail of alcohol, and is working on how these can be embedded across the board. Locally, initiatives such as the "Best Bar None" accreditation scheme, which was first launched in Manchester, are rewarding the best-run premises and encouraging good practice. But there is more to be done to improve the performance of pubs, clubs and off-licences, and the new powers in the Licensing Act 2003 are a key part of this.
	As I have said, a lot of alcohol-related violence and disorder in town and city centres takes place at night, in the streets around pubs and clubs rather than inside them. It is often difficult to blame a particular pub, club or off-licence for this disorder, but that does not mean that premises can deny all responsibility for it. We want the industry to take collective responsibility for the problem. The Bill therefore proposes a new power for the police and local authorities to designate alcohol disorder zones where there is a significant problem with alcohol-related disorder. Let me reassure noble Lords that alcohol disorder zones will be a measure of last resort. The key focus of the alcohol disorder zones provision is on the action-planning stage. Bringing licensed premises together to implement the action plan, whose steps are intended to reduce the risk of alcohol-related crime occurring in the first place, is the real benefit here. It is prevention, rather than simply cure.
	The action plan will be tailored to provide solutions to specific local problems. Typically, this could include taking steps to raise the standard of management in premises, or seeking voluntary contributions towards additional services for the night-time economy, such as taxi marshals to prevent the flare-ups often seen as people queue for taxis at the end of a long night out. The decision to move to formal designation, where necessary, will be reviewed after three months. We foresee very few areas moving beyond the action-planning stage. Much of the detail of the administration of alcohol disorder zones will be in secondary legislation. Noble Lords will, I hope, be pleased to learn that following the helpful recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, we will table an amendment in Committee to make these regulations subject to the affirmative procedure of both Houses of Parliament.
	The Bill also introduces provisions, which supplement existing arrangements in the Licensing Act 2003, to expedite reviews of premises' licences in the case of serious crime and disorder. Under this provision, the licensing authority can act much more quickly to take steps to tackle problem premises in serious cases.
	Finally on alcohol, the Bill introduces a new offence of persistently selling alcohol to children. It gives the police and trading standards officers the power to serve a closure notice on licensed premises, banning the sale of alcohol for up to 48 hours, if alcohol has been sold to children three times in a three-month period. That new offence will create a powerful deterrent by ensuring that sanctions are directed against the business, not just the individuals making the sales. I hope that noble Lords will be pleased to learn that we have accepted the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and will table an amendment in Committee to ensure that any increase in the maximum fine available for this offence will also be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
	In Part 2 we will bring forward another range of important measures, this time designed to tackle aspects of violent crime involving weapons, particularly the misuse of air weapons, imitation firearms and knives. As noble Lords are only too well aware, there is already a range of legislation which makes it an offence to possess a prohibited firearm or to carry knives and other weapons in public without reasonable excuse. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced a mandatory minimum sentence of five years' imprisonment for unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm. In the 12 months to September 2005, there was a 38 per cent reduction in fatal injuries caused by firearms other than air weapons.
	However, offenders may seek to escape prosecution by passing a weapon to another person to hide it for them. Clearly, we need to address this. That is why we will introduce a new offence of using someone to mind a weapon. This will make it an offence to use a person to hide or carry a knife or firearm. The measure includes a requirement for the courts to take into account the age of the person used to hide or carry the weapon when considering sentencing. If the offender is aged 18 or over and the person used to mind a weapon is not, that must be regarded as an aggravating factor which will affect the length of the sentence handed down.
	Another area of real public concern is the misuse of air guns, either as a result of sheer recklessness or out of ignorance of safe practice. It is true that the number of air weapon crimes in 2004–05 was down from the previous year, but we are still looking at a total of 11,825 recorded crimes. That is simply not acceptable, particularly when a closer look at those statistics reveals a total of 1,358 slight injuries and 143 serious injuries in the past year alone. Those statistics tend to obscure real personal tragedies such as the deaths of a two-year-old toddler, Andrew Morton, in Glasgow, and 12 year-old Alex Cole, in Doncaster. Our hearts go out to their families and friends, who have had to cope with those tragic events.
	We already have a wide range of controls regulating the use of air weapons and it is important that they are enforced. But we need to go further and take action at source to control who can sell air weapons. That is why we will make it an offence to sell air weapons by way of trade or business without being registered with the police as a firearms dealer. Sales will also be subject to a requirement for all weapons to be handed over on a face-to-face basis, which will ensure that ages can be checked and address the risk of under-age purchases through the internet or mail order. We will also raise the minimum age for possessing an air weapon from 17 to 18: we believe that much of the misuse is attributed to young people. They will, of course, still be able to use air weapons under supervision.
	Making sure that ammunition is not easily obtained is an important element in tackling gun crime, and we are aware that some criminals try to escape prosecution by holding ammunition in its component form, rather than assembled rounds. Ammunition is essentially useless without a primer and we see no reason why people should be able to buy primers unless they have a genuine reason for possessing them. We are therefore introducing a requirement that primers are sold only to those who hold an appropriate firearms certificate. We are similarly looking to restrict the purchase and sale of ammunition loading presses.
	On Clauses 32 to 37, we were never under any illusion that defining a realistic imitation firearm would be easy, but we simply could not allow the situation to continue where they were increasingly used to commit crime or to cause fear on the streets. The statistics are frightening, the reality even more so.
	Imitation firearms were used in 3,333 crimes in 2003–04, an increase of 55 per cent on the previous year—and that on top of previous rises of 18 per cent and 46 per cent. If we exclude air weapons offences, this represents nearly one-third of all firearms crime. This is all the more worrying when we consider that over 80 per cent of these offences were violence against the person. I hope we can all agree that being threatened with a realistic imitation can be just as traumatic as the real thing.
	We are therefore proposing to make it an offence to manufacture, import or sell a realistic imitation firearm, by which we mean an imitation of so realistic an appearance as to make it indistinguishable for all practical purposes from a real firearm. We understand the need for objectivity if this law is to be properly enforced, which is why we have tightened up during the passage of the Bill the process governing what can and cannot be regarded as a realistic imitation.
	The definition specifically excludes deactivated firearms and imitations of antiques, as well as any imitations which are antiques in their own right. I know that some collectors of real antique firearms are concerned that we have used 1870 as a reference point when there is no fixed date for antiques in the firearms Acts. I should explain that this date was chosen because it was only after then that the manufacture of a particular type of breech-loading firearm became widespread. I am happy to put on the record that we see this date as having relevance only to the Violent Crime Reduction Bill; it has no effect on the provisions of the Firearms Act 1968 which deal with the status of real antique firearms. I hope that noble Lords opposite will derive a certain degree of pleasure from what I have said on that point today.
	We believe that, taken together, these measures will go a long way towards capping off the future supply of realistic imitation firearms used to threaten, intimidate or rob, while still allowing certain legitimate uses to continue. Quite apart from the need to impose more stringent restrictions on realistic imitation firearms, we also need to ensure that other imitations are not capable of misuse. It is for this reason that we are seeking a power to make regulations requiring them to conform to specifications.
	Too often we hear of police armed response units being called out to deal with incidents of people seen brandishing guns, only for them to find that it is youngsters messing around, with little appreciation of the consequences and the risk of being shot in the confusion of the moment. It would be sensible, therefore, to introduce a minimum age for the purchase of any imitation firearm, and we propose to set this at 18. And lest anyone think it is okay to mess about in public with an imitation gun of any description, the Bill increases the maximum penalty for possessing an imitation firearm in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse from six months to 12 months.
	Part 2 also contains measures to deal with those who carry knives and other offensive weapons with the intention of causing harm to others. We fully support the work of the police in tackling knife crime. There are many dedicated, intelligence-led operations going on up and down the country, such as Operation Blunt in London, and we are preparing, in partnership with the Association of Chief Police Officers, for a nationwide knife amnesty, which will run from 24 May until the end of June.
	The Government also recognise the important part played by communities in addressing knife crime. We have this year put £2 million from recycled criminal assets into projects working against gun and knife crimes and issues involving gangs across England and Wales. However, we believe that more needs to be done to help prevent young people, in particular, getting hold of knives. It is currently an offence to sell a knife to a person under the age of 16; Clause 38 increases the age to 18.
	The Bill also introduces a power for head teachers in state and independent schools in England and Wales—if the Assembly wishes to commence the power there—to search any pupils or their possessions if it is suspected that they are carrying a weapon such as a knife. On the whole, schools are orderly and well managed and most pupils never carry a knife. This proposal is directed at the very few young people who ignore the law and take an illegal knife on to school premises. The Bill also provides an equivalent power in relation to further education institutions and attendance centres for young people.
	Part 3 deals with a range of issues, including football-related disorder, sexual offences and mobile phones. The football World Cup and the measures being taken to prevent English troublemakers travelling to the tournament have received a good deal of publicity in recent weeks. It is an area where a great deal has been achieved, but there can be no grounds for complacency. The Bill introduces measures extending the ticket-touting laws to cover the sale of unauthorised tickets on the internet and makes permanent and fine-tunes the banning order arrangements introduced by the Football Disorder Act 2000.
	The Bill also introduces measures to ensure that we remain able to take effective action against those who pose a risk of serious sexual harm to our communities. These include amending the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to restore the power to order the forfeiture and detention of vehicles used by those engaged in the inhumane trade of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation.
	Noble Lords will know that the Bill is part of a very full agenda of the Government's work to build on our success in reducing violent crime. It complements our citizen-focused approach to neighbourhood policing by giving communities the powers they need to respond quickly and creatively to local problems, in particular alcohol-related violence and disorder. But it also recognises that tough action needs to be taken to prevent those more serious violent crimes involving weapons. That is why we are making weapons harder to get hold of and making sure that there are appropriately stiff penalties in place for those who break the law.
	I apologise for taking a little longer than I would normally, but I hope that these helpful indications of how we will progress this matter will leave noble Lords less troubled than they would otherwise have been, and that they can therefore, perhaps, make shorter contributions. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, as ever, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the Bill. We always seem to be on a treadmill with Home Office Bills—as one goes, another one comes along.
	Crime statistics are trotted out by the Government to paint a picture of a Britain where crime is reducing, but we know that British Crime Survey figures are systematically flawed; they are not comprehensive and they omit murder, sexual offences and crimes against people under the age of 16 altogether. In the case of violent crime, they are contradicted by the recorded crime figures and by everyone's everyday experience. According to the international crime victimisation survey, Britain has the second highest levels of criminality in the industrialised world.
	At one end of the spectrum, we read of the appalling crimes of violence where law-abiding people are attacked as they walk home after a night out or unsuspectingly answer the door of their home to robbers. At the other end, we hear stories of fines being dished out to people who drop their junk mail into street litter bins or of ASBOs being imposed on those who are a suicide risk.
	We could argue the toss over the accuracy of crime figures until the end of this Government, but in the spirit of being constructive about this modest Bill, which tinkers at the edges of violent crime, I shall concentrate on the proposals in the Bill and our response to them.
	I have to observe that the Government obviously see no urgency about the Bill. Otherwise, why would they leave it mouldering on the shelf for so long? It had its Second Reading in another place on 20 June last year and its First Reading in this House on 15 November last year. Nineteen weeks have passed since the Bill reached this House. It is interesting to learn a little today of what I hope has been rather more progress by the Government in that time, particularly on drafting regulations. I welcome the moves that the noble Baroness announced today, particularly in accepting the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the other matters to which she referred.
	I would be grateful if the Minister could also tell us what progress the Government have made with regard to the policy detail of the alcohol disorder zone regulations. I note in particular a letter written by her right honourable friend Hazel Blears to my honourable friend Humfrey Malins on 10 November last year, which stated:
	"We are still working on the policy detail of the Alcohol Disorder Zone regulations, but hope to be able to have them in draft form as soon as possible".
	Will we have a sight of those before Committee and, if not, why not? Perhaps they might even be available today. As I have said in debates on previous Bills, I live in hope—always the optimist.
	I am grateful to the noble Baroness for referring to amendments that the Government will bring forward in Committee with regard to the treatment of those who have alcohol disorder-related problems. We will look at those with great care, but the principle is of course to be welcomed.
	What progress have the Government made on their plans to consult those businesses that will be penalised by the introduction of the alcohol disorder zones? What progress have they made on consultation with those who have an interest in legislation on air guns and imitation firearms? Will further amendments be brought forward in Committee to improve the Bill as a result?
	There are many parts of the Bill that we can support outright. Others we will support only subject to the important caveat of making sure that they are both fair and effective in their scope and application. We welcome the greater powers to be given to courts to allow them to ban individuals from drinking in pubs and clubs in a defined area for a given length of time. There is no doubt that local authorities need powers to control local drinking hotspots, and giving courts the chance to focus on serial disorderly drinkers who populate such places should, we hope, be of some help.
	There are a few issues that we will need to examine carefully in Committee to make sure that the scheme works better. It seems odd that licensees who control their premises impeccably should have to pay for the cost of dealing with the disorder caused by others who may not even be licensees. We will want to examine whether it is possible to give the local authority a measure of discretion in how it imposes charges on local businesses.
	We want to examine whether the Bill treats consultation in the right way. It does not at the moment, for example, seem to specify that businessmen and women from our ethnic communities should be included formally in the consultation process. We shall table amendments in Committee to address that issue.
	We support the proposals to create the offence of using an accomplice to conceal weapons. There is evidence that a number of cases are not prosecuted for lack of a weapon, so the provision may well help to convict more criminals.
	We on the Front Bench support the extension of the age limit for the purchase of air guns. I anticipate that those on my Back Benches who have long experience of the needs of rural areas may take an alternative view. I recognise fully that the lawful use of guns is an essential part of many areas of rural life and the rural economy. While this Bill is well intentioned, my noble friends will want to ensure that it will not prejudice the interests of those whose livelihoods are based in the rural community.
	We agree with the Government that there is a problem with replica firearms, which can be used to terrorise the public. They make life difficult and downright dangerous for the police, and they can lead to tragedy. However, the age-old problem of definition plagues this part of the Bill. I welcomed the Minister's further explanation of the term "antique". I and others will look carefully at her assurances regarding Clause 34(8), which relates to realistic imitation firearms pre-dating 1870.
	I always take very seriously assurances that are given at the Dispatch Box. Due to a domestic circumstance, I take them perhaps even more seriously this week than I might have done a week or so ago. As the Minister knows, my husband is a practising lawyer. He brought to my attention an exchange of views between the noble Baroness and me a little while ago during the passage of the Extradition Act. He showed me a recent decision by the Court of Appeal on the matter of habeas corpus. A categorical assurance about habeas corpus given to me by the Minister in response to an amendment was deemed by the Court of Appeal to be a clarification of the law, and it made a decision in an extradition case based on her assurance. So I take those matters seriously. We will need to see whether the definition that she has provided today goes far enough. I hope that it does.
	Other aspects of the definition of "realistic imitation firearm" also cause a problem. The Government made some sensible progress in another place, but we will need to examine further whether their objectives are fully met without causing the honest person to lose the opportunity to carry out his legal pastime, particularly those who engage in airsoft activities. I confess that, before this Bill came along, I had never heard of airsoft. When I did, I mistakenly thought that it was rather like paintball. I am grateful to the Association of British Airsoft for its careful briefing on this matter and for the time that it has taken with me. I now appreciate that the amendments which the Government passed in another place may not have had quite the beneficial effect that they intended and that the future of airsoft is still under threat.
	In addition, it seems that the new defences to the offence of possessing an imitation firearm do not fully cover historical re-enactors and those who run private museums and galleries. We will table amendments which examine that matter further. I understand that Hazel Blears is still in contact with some of the organisations that are interested in this part of the Bill—for example, the Association of British Airsoft. That is a constructive approach, and I hope that we will be able to make further progress in this House as a result.
	We are puzzled that the Government have still failed to carry out their commitment to establish a firearms committee of experts. We shall table an amendment which asks them to justify their inaction.
	The Bill deals also with weapons of a different kind: knives. There has been a sharp increase in knife killings since 1988 and the number of offences has gone up by 17 per cent. That clearly has to be tackled, but how? One does not prevent a crime by banning the weapons with which it is committed, although one may be able to limit its incidence and its effects. Rather, one prevents crime by detecting it, punishing it and, in the case of violent crime, keeping those responsible out of circulation and in prison for the safety of the public. We question whether the Government have had any great success on that.
	It is now proposed to increase the age at which knives can be bought legally. Somebody will be able to marry at 16, but not buy a knife to use in their kitchen. There is no reason to believe that the new offence will be effective. There is no shortage of knives in circulation and, with or without the Bill, there is unlikely to be a shortage in the future. A MORI poll in 2004 revealed that a quarter of children aged between 12 and 16 admitted to carrying a knife. Almost one in five of them said that they had attacked someone intending to do injury. That is a horrific statistic. If we want to reduce knife crime, we should focus on those who use the knives, not only on those who buy them.
	We support provisions throughout Part 3 of the Bill, as they tidy up a range of measures, from those tackling football disorder to others that strengthen the law on trafficking for sexual exploitation. During my first trawl through the Bill, I considered that the drafting did not require improvement. So this may be a first in my time speaking on home affairs since 2002, in that I shall not table any amendments to clauses in a part of a government Bill. I celebrate that—and the Minister may be rather relieved.
	Finally, there are a couple of measures that I shall seek to add to the Bill, which we hope the Government may find useful. They are put forward in a constructive spirit, and I shall table the new clauses tomorrow to make provision for them. The first is for a new criminal offence of "happy slapping". Noble Lords will be all too aware from press reports that there has been much concern about the prevalence of a new sort of activity among people who have ready access to a mobile phone that takes still or video pictures and who use that phone to record a criminal event—usually a group kicking, beating or raping an individual. The pictures are then transmitted to others on the basis that they can all have a good laugh at the victim and applaud the criminal. That is a despicable way in which to behave.
	The new offence that I hope to introduce would make it illegal for any person intentionally to make an audio or visual recording of a criminal offence for the purpose of obtaining gratification for himself or another. I stressed the words "intentionally", "purpose" and "gratification" for the very simple purpose of explaining that I believe that in that way I would ensure that those who record criminal events for the purposes of prosecuting the same are not caught by my proposed offence. I am thinking not only of the police or journalists, but also of the quick-thinking members of the public who took pictures in London of the consequences of the July bombings, for example. They are to be praised and would not fall foul of my proposed offence.
	My second proposal addresses the needs of those of our Olympians who excel at shooting events. At present, it is almost impossible for those who wish to participate in the pistol events to train properly without heavy financial burdens and the need to travel outside UK jurisdiction, which act as disincentives. We think it right that we work with the Government to introduce measures that would enable our shooting sportsmen and women to equip and train themselves in the UK for the Olympics when they are held in London in 2012. My noble friend Lord Glentoran will lead us on these matters. I shall give a little support, but he will do the redoubtable work on it.
	We shall seek to allow a person to have an authorised pistol, subject to several very severe conditions, giving the Secretary of State some very strong backstop powers. It will be vital to ensure that there is strict control so that the ownership and use of single-shot pistols is restricted to those who are training to take part in the Olympics in London. We must ensure that there is a time limit, so that sportspeople do not benefit from the relaxation of existing rules until 1 January 2010—that date might ring in the Minister's ears after our recent vote. That is two years in advance of the London Olympics. It is a date of my own choosing, unlike the one in the matter on which we have just voted. If the Government can find another and better way by which they can guarantee that our participants in the London Olympics will be able to practise within the UK, I shall be happy to discuss it with them.
	Overall, this is a well intentioned Bill, but one that merely tinkers at the edges of what we really need—a significant reduction in violent crime. Nevertheless, like the Minister, we look forward to a constructive and lively, if perhaps not too lively, time in Committee.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, there is no doubt that alcohol has a major impact on health, when there are 25,000 admissions a year to accident and emergency departments, and on crime, when 50,000 violent offences are the result of people drinking too much. Alcohol-related crime costs the UK an estimated £7.3 billion a year in policing and in costs to criminal justice and public services.
	The drinks industry has made some voluntary strides through the Portman Group. Strides have been taken in the on-trade through voluntary action and reducing happy hours, and in the off-trade and supermarkets through the British Retail Consortium's Retail Alcohol Standards Group and through the BRC and Wine and Spirit Trade Association guidance on the responsible retailing of alcohol.
	I accept that voluntary action by the best players is not always enough. There are, therefore, aspects of this Bill that are worthy of consideration. There is the concept of a levy to reduce the cost to the taxpayer of policing Friday and Saturday nights in particular in our city centres, which is worthy of exploration. However, I have significant doubts about that and wonder whether the same ends could not be achieved by voluntary means. There are many areas where there is a significant lack of clarity in Part 1 of the Bill, and that is causing great concern in the retail drinks industry. Guidance on the Bill has not yet been published, and I understand the Minister to say that, although the affirmative resolution procedure would be used for the regulations, that would not be the case for the guidance.
	It is not yet clear who will be affected by the alcohol disorder zones. Will nightclubs be exempt? Will all licensees in an ADZ be held responsible in the same way? What will the money actually be spent on? What impact will the ADZs have on residents? Why should all licensed businesses be swept into the net of an ADZ? Why do we need a Home Office Bill of this kind when, under the effectively brand-new Licensing Act 2003, licensing conditions can already be imposed on irresponsible businesses? Even businesses such as convenience stores, which sell only a tiny amount of alcohol, will be swept into these ADZs. Why, when there is little evidence that they contribute to crime in an area, should businesses such as retail off-licences be liable for the charge within an ADZ on exactly the same basis as major drinking premises? Even the Home Office, in its Drinking Responsibly document, has admitted that the link is "tenuous".
	Will the levy pay for additional services only and, if so, what is envisaged? Otherwise, will this not turn out to be rather a nice little earner for local authorities? Will local authorities actually ever lift the ADZ designation once it is imposed, particularly if there is money attached to it? Why should businesses ever join a voluntary scheme if there is compulsion through an ADZ? Why is the test under which a local authority can set up an ADZ so low? As I understand it, the test is "nuisance", rather than strong evidence of alcohol-related disorder, which I believe was the test previously proposed. Moreover, there appears to be no appeal against the imposition of an ADZ. In those circumstances, I end up with some considerable scepticism about ADZs, and I look for clarification from the Minister.
	In other respects, however, the Bill has been criticised for not being fundamental enough. Alcohol Concern has rightly criticised the Bill for not challenging what it describes as the underlying drinking culture that fuels so much anti-social behaviour. From what the Minister said in her introduction, she may be filling a gap in that respect through some of the schemes that she mentioned will be included.
	The Bill fails to provide genuine support for those who want to change the way they drink. Alcohol Concern, which I commend, is calling for arrest referral schemes for problem drinkers who come through the criminal justice system. That is the kind of programme where, when people are bailed for an alcohol-related crime, they are required to attend counselling sessions designed to reduce the likelihood of reoffending. What exactly do the Government suggest in that respect? Will they include the ability to refer for that kind of treatment under the Bill?
	Finally, Alcohol Concern also makes the extremely valid point that there are provisions in existing laws that are not yet being properly enforced. Its view is that enforcement of existing legislation on drunk and disorderly behaviour, for instance, has dropped sharply over the past 10 years. It questions the value of new powers in the Bill if those powers contained in previous legislation are not enforced. There is a common theme here. Do we really need these new powers if the existing ones are not being used properly? I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and a convincing argument to reinforce the reasons why Part 1 of the Bill is necessary.

The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, I appreciated very much the Minister's introduction to the Bill and explanation of it. I wish to make a general point about it and illustrate that with a particular clause.
	I recognise that at future stages of the Bill there will be opportunity to address individual provisions. However, in one sense the Bill uses rather old remedies to deal with the problem. In some circles to which I belong it is a requirement, before introducing any proposal, that you have it costed; that usually means in financial terms. I would like to see a self-denying ordinance on government to require the answering of the question: how many additional persons will be incarcerated as a result of the passage of the Bill and the creation of its offences? That is a really important question because all the evidence is that the more people we incarcerate, the fewer are successfully rehabilitated, so the less likely we are to have the overall crime reduction which the Government seek.
	I am seriously concerned that in just one day in this House we have created a number of new offences. If we have created a number of new offences, we have created a number of new offenders. If we have created a number of new offenders, we have created more work for our already overcrowded prisons, with the consequent effect on the Government's very serious and committed attempts to achieve crime reduction, one of the major factors in which is the reduction of reoffending.
	The Minister has heard me say this several times before, and if she yawns I shall not be surprised, but it seems to me that on this Bill too we have to ask: was there no other way to deal with some of these matters? I have not done the calculation and I do not know how much further likelihood there is of creating offences as a result of the Bill's provisions on alcohol-related disorder. I realise that the orders which are proposed as civil orders do not automatically lead to imprisonment, but I still think that the question of sanctions arises, and at the other end of sanctions imprisonment can arise. I would like some reassurance on that.
	Gun crime is one of the Bill's major concerns. In the week following the major gun incident in Birmingham, which was not that long ago, I believe that the number of people in prison increased by 180. That was simply the result of public concern reflected, quite properly, in the response of the judiciary to what had happened.
	Clause 41 concerns the power to search further education students for weapons. That power is conferred on a member of staff—and "a member of staff" is very widely drawn—who has "reasonable grounds" for suspecting that someone is carrying a weapon. What are reasonable grounds? Are they the sight of a weapon-shaped bulge in somebody's coat pocket? That would be one kind of reasonable ground. Or might it be the continued emotional volatility of the person concerned, which has led to them uttering abusive threats? Some of our students in further education institutions react to pressure by becoming violent. Will the clause which confers the power to use reasonable force lead to explosions of anger by vulnerable people and criminalise them as a result? I do not know the answers to those questions. But I feel a real concern on reading this Bill in the context of the Government's general response to crime, which is the repeated creation of further offences, and therefore of further offenders.
	I frequently use the prison population as an illustration of the nature of original sin. We all want the numbers brought down, but we constantly pass laws that have the predictable effect of increasing them. It is true that there is a reduction in crime, but at what cost and by what means can it most effectively be pursued? I have responded to the production of this Bill more by a series of questions than by opposition to its principle. I want to be sure that a prison population audit is carried out before new offences are created, so that our society does not suffer the blight of a constantly rising proportion of the population incarcerated with the effects that that has on the destruction of communities, families and their own ability to function effectively in society. That this Bill has good intentions is not in doubt; but I doubt whether I can really be comfortable with the pattern of behaviour that it represents, which is a pattern of response to disorder by creating new offences and more imprisonment.

Lord Pendry: My Lords, I am very pleased to speak on this important Bill, which was so ably introduced by the Minister. It marks a key point in the delivery of the Government's manifesto commitment to reduce public disorder, violent crime and anti-social behaviour. Those are problems that will not magically disappear; they need sustained action to address them. The Government have shown time and again their resolve to reduce crime, both through legislative measures and action on the ground.
	There are many important features in the Bill that others have touched on. At this stage, I would like to concentrate my contribution on one area of the Bill that deals specifically with football and sport-related matters; that is Part 3. Perhaps I will find more disagreement than the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in that part. Before I do so, I remind the House that as well as being chairman of the All-Party Group on Sports, I am president of the Football Foundation, having previously served as chairman of that body and of its predecessor, the Football Trust.
	Those organisations came into being as a result of the terrible tragedy in Hillsborough in 1989, the 17th anniversary of which will be next month. They have played a key role in the evolution of improved standards of security and safety at football grounds across the country. The years of investment through the Football Foundation and the Football Stadium Improvement Fund—in all-seated stadiums, CCTV operations and improved facilities—have made a considerable impact on the state of our football stadiums. In the past 15 years, the experience of going to football matches has been transformed. One side-benefit of that investment is that we now have the finest stock of football stadiums in the world, a fact that should hold us in good stead when the FA next bids to host the World Cup.
	One measure that the Bill addresses is touting at football matches. Ticket touting is an issue that I have campaigned against for many years. Eradicating touting was a key recommendation of the Taylor report. After lots of prompting from myself and others the then Conservative government finally introduced a measure to make touting at football matches illegal through the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. At the time I would have preferred measures to be taken further to embrace other sports, as they also face issues of public order associated with touting.
	Touting creates a range of public order and public nuisance concerns, from allowing the black market economy to flourish, to undermining policing and security arrangements. Lord Justice Taylor, in his final report, said that,
	"whatever the policy merits of freedom to trade and market forces, they must surely yield to the maintenance of safety and prevention of disorder. Touts and football matches put both at risk".
	Following that line of reasoning, there was a subsequent Labour Party policy commitment in the Labour's Sporting Nation initiative in 1997 to legislate against ticket touting for all sports. I will be expecting the Government to live up to that commitment in the near future. The legislation on football ticket touting had an impact initially, but touting tickets at football matches still exists. The problem has evolved with criminals bypassing the original terms of the offence largely due to the advent of the internet, which was of course not considered when the legislation was introduced.
	I commend the Government for taking on board the views of the Football Association, the Premier League, UEFA, FIFA, the police and other stakeholders, who have more than 10 years' experience of dealing with this legislation but are now looking to the Government to strengthen its provisions. I fully understand that further tweaking of the clause in the current Bill—I hope to have some support from all over the House—may be needed, and I look forward to supporting the process as we reach Committee.
	The Bill improves the law and makes explicit the illegality of unscrupulous touts who, one way or another, get round the spirit of the original criminal justice Act by offering football tickets and a "free" gift alongside the overpriced purchase of the original ticket. They offer some worthless article, such as a scarf—unless, of course, it is a Derby County scarf.
	Perhaps most important of all, the Bill introduces new measures to tackle ticket touting over the internet. This is a growing problem that leaves more people at risk from exposure to scams. Your Lordships will be aware that a great many tickets have been bought and sold over the internet for the World Cup in Germany, with many football fans finding themselves priced out of the market by touts selling only for extortionate prices. That practice causes significant problems for the police and the intelligence services, who try to target resources to ensure that the World Cup passes without incidents of the kind that we have seen in the past.
	The anti-touting initiatives are just one strand of the Government's good work in participating with the FA and the German authorities to combat the threat of disorder at this summer's World Cup. In addition to the work on policing and banning orders, the FA and the Home Office have continued the Altogether Now campaign from 2004. This initiative is aimed at encouraging a positive approach to supporting England, and it is good to see that supporter groups have had an input at every stage of this development. The FA also deserves congratulations on successfully lobbying for a small increase in FIFA's ticket allocation for England fans for the World Cup group matches.
	Current legislation on football ticket touting prohibits touting of tickets only for domestic football matches and overseas club or international matches in which the England or Wales national team is playing. With the World Cup in June this year, new measures introduced by the Home Office last week extend the prohibition of touting to include all tournaments and competitions organised by FIFA or UEFA in which the English and Welsh national teams or senior club sides are eligible to participate.
	Although it is currently an offence for unlicensed traders to sell tickets for England's confirmed group games against Paraguay, Trinidad and Tobago and Sweden, this new order will close the loophole that allows traders to speculate on later stages of the tournament. Perhaps the Minister will have a personal interest in this issue, particularly in relation to the match against Trinidad and Tobago. It will now be illegal to sell on tickets for any matches that England may play in Germany after the knockout stage, including tickets for the final, which, believe it or not, are being advertised on the internet for something like £1,000. The Football Association's chief executive, Brian Barwick, has said of the order:
	"It has been extremely frustrating to see online touts, who we monitor on a daily basis, undermining all this good work by selling tickets for the latter rounds in which England could be playing. The new regulations will close this loophole and should lead to a better tournament for all England fans in Germany this summer".
	Coupled with the revision of the definition of ticket touting proposed in the Bill today, the Government will create a robust legislative regime to meet the problem head-on.
	Finally, I want to touch briefly on another issue which affects the sports world—that of stewards at sports ground. The Minister is no doubt aware of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 and the intention of the legislation to raise security standards in licensed premises and reduce criminality within the security sector. Unfortunately, the Act has inadvertently been applied to stewards at football grounds and sports events. Not only does that pose a threat of increased costs for sports events, it also threatens to divert resources away from investment in effective stewarding to licensing costs and training procedures that are not appropriate. It would reduce the levels of protection at our sports grounds, where those who run them are deservedly proud of their worldwide acclaim for safety standards.
	The Bill presents us with an opportunity to rectify that unfortunate mistake, and I know that other Members of the House who, like me, care about sport are looking carefully at this option. Will the Minister consider amending the Private Security Industry Act via an amendment to the Bill to exclude sports grounds from the Security Industry Authority's remit? Might she meet a delegation of interested Peers and representatives of the sports world so that we can discuss this matter and find the correct amendment to bring forward in Committee?

Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Pendry. Not for the first time—and, I am sure, not for the last—the Government Front Bench will find itself, on one issue at least, in a small squeeze between the noble Lord and myself.
	I want to suggest to the noble Baroness that we should correct a couple of previous pieces of legislation involving sport. She will be aware of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 and its intention to raise the standards of the security industry in relation to licensed premises and to reduce criminality within the security industry. However, is she aware that the regulating authority—the Security Industry Authority— has subsequently sought to include stewards at sports grounds and major sports events? I am led to understand that even the PGA European Tour open golf championship, the Olympics, when they come, and all other major sports events of that nature could fall, as they do at present under the law, within that remit. This potentially causes a huge financial and administrative burden to all the sports involved.
	I understand that arrangements are already in place for football events under a separate regulatory framework, and rightly so. The noble Lord, Lord Pendry, knows considerably more about the football world than I do. However, during the initial consultation on the licensing of door supervisors et cetera, and in the accompanying regulatory impact assessment, it was not made explicit that the proposals would apply in the case of other sports events. Nor were representative bodies on the consultation lists. This seems to suggest that sporting events were not intended to come within the scope of this Act. The Minister for Sport, Richard Caborn, has said that in other places. It may well have been an oversight that they were not excluded from the Act in the same way as cinemas and theatres were.
	I understand that, as of last week, it has become illegal to work as a security guard without an SIA licence, which means that organisers of sports events are now—today—potentially criminally liable for using unlicensed stewards. I also understand that consultation is going on between those representing sports events organisers and the Home Office. While this consultation is going on, however, members of the sports industry have been left in uncertainty about whether they will fall foul of the Act. As I understand it, they are relying solely on an informal agreement with the police that they will not be prosecuted. I am sure noble Lords will agree that that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
	The Bill presents us with an opportunity to rectify this unfortunate situation. I ask the Minister to table an amendment in Committee through which we can agree to sort this out, or perhaps I could speak to officials outside the Chamber and try to draft an opposition amendment that might satisfy the Government.
	The second issue is another problem caused by previous legislation which also was mentioned earlier today by my noble friend Lady Anelay. It is the effect of firearms legislation on the ability of our pistol-shooting athletes to compete with foreign competitors on an equal footing. I acknowledge the sensitive nature of this issue. The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 was passed after the terrible events at Dunblane. However, the ban on sporting handguns has had a disproportionate effect on would-be international and Olympic competitors who wish to represent their country in a perfectly legitimate activity.
	I accept that there is a massive gun crime problem in the United Kingdom, but I am afraid that, since 1997, the current system has proved ineffective in preventing the rise in gun crime, while jeopardising the UK's medal-winning attempts for the London 2012 Olympics. Three of the 15 Olympic shooting disciplines involve the use of banned cartridge-firing pistols, but the current situation means that our athletes have to store their weapons and train abroad for these events at great expense and inconvenience. I understand that, for the Manchester Commonwealth Games in 2002, special licences had to be issued to allow the English team to import their pistols into the UK. While this may provide a temporary and expedient solution for a specific event, it does not address the lack of opportunity for young pistol shots to train regularly and cheaply. As the Government have just set a target of the UK being in the top four of the final medal ratings for the 2012 Olympics, now would be an excellent time to remove this impediment to our medal-winning hopes. I understand that the Great Britain Target Shooting Federation is in talks with the Home Office on this issue. The last thing I would wish would be for anything to jeopardise a successful outcome to those discussions, but given the context of the Bill, now would seem an appropriate moment to ask Her Majesty's Government what their intentions are in this matter.
	I look forward to hearing the Minister's response and to further discussions on the detail of the legislation at a later date.

Lord Addington: My Lords, when I put my name down to speak in the debate I did so in order to speak about a subject that I thought would be brought in under the miscellaneous provisions of the Bill. I was going to speak about legislation that has had unforeseen consequences—the Private Security Industry Act 2001. I now become the third in a hat-trick of Peers to speak on the issue. I do not think that conspiracies are common or efficient. I believe that we are looking at a good old-fashioned cock-up. What has happened is that legislation designed to deal with a real problem has accidentally caught something else. The only part of the sports industry that, because of a history of disturbances, should have had any concern—football—got its act together, and as other legislation already existed, it was not caught by the 2001 Act. The sports that are blessed by not having acquired the idiot-fan/yob element, or have had very few such incidents, now have to fork out a lot of money, either directly or via employees, to make sure that these people are licensed.
	Yesterday, I had a long conversation—a rather scruffy one over a mobile phone—with the authority. I got a firm, polite response: "This is the law. It's our job. We're going to do it". To be perfectly honest, I was slightly irritated, but I had to take off my hat to the authority. It was doing its job—enforcing legislation. If we expect it to enforce the law, that is what it will do. We therefore have to change the law. We have to do something here and now and this is a good opportunity to do it.
	During my discussions on this matter I was informed that talk is going on within Whitehall. People are discussing it. It has been realised that mistakes have been made and there have been unintended consequences. The Government are thinking about how to get round this. If the Minister can give us some guidance about where the talks are going, I will be very glad to hear it. I do not think that anyone should think this is worth going to the stake for. It is simply a mistake. If one looks at the paper trail and at statements, one finds Ministers, sounding slightly embarrassed, saying, "Oh, it does that?". That is the interpretation I have got from various meetings. This is something that we should change. We can change it. I do not think anyone will say that if we do it quickly, no one will pay any attention—"We can get it done and the Government needn't worry about it". We may try and crow about it, but everyone will say, "That happened quickly". The Government can head us off at the pass here. They should take the opportunity.
	I turn briefly to the rest of the Bill. I was interested in the issue of re-enactment societies that use weapons from after 1870, I think. I have been a Member of this House just long enough to have heard the debate on the original firearms restrictions inspired by the Hungerford massacre. I believe that the date of 1870 was chosen because those designs included a breech that can use a modern cartridge and the technology has not moved on. It will be interesting to see how this works out with groups that do re-enactments. I believe that initially there was panic about it, but I notice that the Minister has sensibly removed groups such as the Sealed Knot. Whatever the statistics on firearms, everybody realises that matchlock muskets are not a favoured weapon for stick-ups. It will be interesting to see how they deal with it.
	Noble Lords should remember that although jokes can be made about anoraks, these people help in the study of history and to bring history to life for groups. Some form of supportive action would be helpful to these groups. We must ensure that these weapons are made safe, or as safe as possible, while maintaining the authenticity of that historical experience.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I rise because I was lobbied about some aspects of the measure. Now that I have read the Explanatory Notes I am slightly more concerned. We are yet again trying to deal with a problem by trying to control the "tools" that cause the problem rather than the behaviour and the way in which they are used. Part of the problem is that we no longer have punishments or effective rehabilitation, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester was saying earlier. The problem lies at that end. Simply trying to control access to all those things will not alter the situation very much. It is actually illegal to be drunk in a public place, as it is to threaten or attack someone. Simply trying to remove the means of doing those things will not solve the problem. You cannot remove all the toy guns. You cannot remove all the things that boys carve to look like toy guns when they are playing cowboys and Indians or modern versions of the same game. You cannot stop all use of knives in the household, in business and everywhere else. You cannot prohibit people carrying items that could be dangerous in everyday life. All you will do is move from one weapon to another.
	We must stop focusing on trying to make more rules to make people's lives more difficult and start focusing on trying to do something about behaviour for which people reckon they will get hauled up in court, get a rapped knuckle and then walk out and commit the same offence. That is where the problem lies.
	I was interested to find that the problems are not as great as I thought. I know that everyone says these things are absolutely appalling. However, if one-third of all firearms crimes are committed with imitation guns, and knowing what bad shots most people are, I think that I will probably be okay if I tackle someone who waves a gun at me—imitation or otherwise, because an awful lot of them are imitation. If there are 3,333 imitation gun crimes, then there are only about 10,000 firearms crimes altogether. That is not a huge number when you consider the population and everyday life. Your actual chances of running into one are fairly low.
	That does not mean that we should be complacent and do nothing about it. I simply wonder whether sometimes we do not overact. The Minister said that there was a 38 per cent reduction—but from what base did it occur? I hate relative statistics. If only 10 crimes were committed, then the number has been reduced to six. You need absolute statistics to get a feel for the size of the problem.
	It is very difficult to explain all my feelings about this. I suppose I take the attitude that if you are stupid enough to wave an imitation firearm around the place and pretend to perpetrate a crime with it and you get shot, it is your fault. It is not the fault of the police for overreacting. I do not think they are overreacting at all. How can you tell an imitation firearm when it is being waved at you? You have to be quite an expert for that. A very crude imitation can be passed off as genuine to someone who does not know a hell of a lot about firearms. I am not sure that all these rules will achieve the aim that we desire. I think that we will simply be stopping boys having a bit of fun playing the modern version of cowboys and Indians. That would be very sad as it is a natural part of growing up.
	The next point is whether 17-year olds commit a huge number of these offences. Will increasing the age for purchasing dangerous items such as knives and airguns to 18 make any difference at all? I should imagine that young people can get hold of all those things quite happily at 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 or whatever age you like. I cannot believe that raising the age by one year will make much difference. It is a great anomaly that we are increasing a range of age limits to 18 when there is talk of reducing the age for voting to 16. At what age do we think people are grown up? We should not be doing things in both directions. We need to decide when people are grown up and when they are not.
	I am a bit worried by some of these rules about alcohol disorder zones, and so on, because they have been tried before. In fact, they have a long history: you can go back 100 years or so and find that those things were being tried then and did not work then either. I am worried that they may give power to either police or local inspectors to bully people. You can threaten people. I have met this problem before. You will always get the petty official who tries to exceed his powers and does not always behave reasonably. We in Parliament, standing here debating, always seem to assume that all inspectors are reasonable. They are not always and we must look out for that.
	What I am really worried about is whether this will really be effective, or whether it is just cosmetic. Is it because someone said, "Something must be done", so we make some more rules? What happens? We make some more rules. We ban the sale. Actually, nothing changes. There are millions of air guns out there already. There are tens or hundreds of millions of knives out there already. We need to teach safety to the young. We need to bring people up with an awareness that those things are around them. I do not think that banning their sale will make any difference at all. It is a cosmetic reaction to a problem put around by the media to which the Government feel that they must react.
	If we go back to the issue of alcohol, what good will licensing and all these other extra things do? I suspect that they will mean a lot more paperwork in a lot of cases—all the disorder zones and everything like that.
	I think that the review of air guns is being tackled in the wrong place. That should be done under a general review of firearms. There is the whole business of the Conservatives' knee-jerk reaction after an appalling incident, which should never have happened—in some cases, people should never have been on the loose to do what they did. It is not the legally held firearms that are the problem, on the whole. That should be acknowledged. We should therefore wrap up serious pistol shooting with legally held firearms. The whole thing should be properly reviewed. At that stage, we can start to consider what we do with air guns, if we want to classify them as a firearm.
	The Bill's provisions will not control them. There is a control at point of sale, but that is it. After that, they disappear into a great void and can be traded, handed over, lent, borrowed or otherwise moved around the place. So I do not think that that will make any difference at all. That should really be tackled by a proper review—which was promised and is supposed to be happening—of legally held firearms. We should not be tightening up on legally held firearms; the whole thing must be thought about from a much more sensible point of view.
	It worries me that the Bill uses a different definition from that in the Firearms Act 1968 of what is an old or antique weapon. Those definitions should be logical and the same; otherwise it causes confusion. I was thinking of the old saying that hard cases make bad laws. We must be very careful that we are not just doing something cosmetic that will make little difference and will be laughed at. We must worry about changing people's behaviour, not just trying to control their access to things to which they will have access anyway, regardless of what rules we pass here.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, I welcome the Bill, as I am sure the overwhelming majority of the British public will also. It is mainly about alcohol misuse and its links with crime and disorder. Regrettably, they affect many people in this country these days. It is on those topics that I wish to speak. The links are well documented. Prior to the publication of the Government's alcohol harm reduction strategy in 2004, the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit's research in 2003 estimated that alcohol-related harm costs about £20 billion a year, of which alcohol-related crime costs the UK £7.3 billion in policing, prevention services, processing offenders through the criminal justice system and, of course, the human costs incurred by the victims of crime.
	Given that nearly half of violent crime is fuelled by alcohol and that more than half of the public perceive violent crime to be on the increase, the time is right for the Government to redouble their efforts to tackle this nation's problem with the drinking culture, and the crime and disorder that accompany it so often.
	I particularly welcome the proposed introduction of alcohol disorder zones. They will enable local authorities to hold the drinks trade to account for the impact of their business on individuals and the community as a whole. Although I acknowledge that parts of the industry are concerned that responsible businesses may be punished for their neighbours' unscrupulous behaviour, the growth of a large number of licensed premises in some areas contributes to creating many intoxicated people, all of whom are slightly more rowdy and jubilant and more likely to react aggressively than they would be if sober. Antisocial behaviour is far more likely in these circumstances than in others, as I am sure we have all seen in our town centres of an evening.
	The Bill gives licensees the opportunity to try to solve these problems by joint participation. I think that that is the right way forward initially. However, if this ideal basis fails, surely it is appropriate and necessary to give local authorities the powers to improve the situation for the benefit of the whole community. I firmly believe that, if we are not careful, there may be repeated attacks on them of the kind we had on ASBOs. Although some people strongly opposed them when they first came in, and have continued to oppose them in some instances, they have worked well in the main, and they have been welcomed in many communities, particularly those that have suffered violence and disorder.
	I am sorry about the concern of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, for whom I have a particular affection. I have a close connection with him in that he confirmed me in my 40s, in Battersea and Wandsworth. Had he still been there, I would have invited him to join me in some of the canvassing and other work that I do in that area and to see how ASBOs have been welcomed by people who continue to have difficulties, particularly with drunken people in the streets and in their neighbourhoods. I believe that the kind of people who have those problems will welcome alcohol disorder zones. They are an improvement on focusing simply on individual premises, as happens at present. There will also need to be a continuing and broader look at the role of the drinks trade and how it can play an even bigger part in changing the drinking culture in this country. Perhaps the Minister could say what is happening in this respect following the introduction of the alcohol harm-reduction strategy. For example, has any progress been made with the drinks trade on labelling, which it could act on without a great deal of effort on its part, and certainly at minimum cost? Do the Government plan to review their alcohol harm-reduction strategy and, if so, when are we likely to see it?
	Again, I welcome the Bill's focus on individuals' responsibility for their own unacceptable behaviour when drunk. A firm stance on this issue is crucial, and drinking banning orders and the recent Home Office campaign to crack down on drunk and disorderly conduct will go some way towards improving the situation. However, simply focusing on punishing those who are drunk and disorderly is not enough; making a commitment to supporting people to change their relationship with alcohol is equally, if not more, important. That is where I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester. It is estimated that 1.1 million people in England are dependent on alcohol, and there is little point in banning them from entering premises where they can purchase their drug of choice without offering them support to try to stop drinking. It is of great concern to all of us that, of the 70,000-plus prisoners currently in gaol in the UK, it is estimated that more than 40,000 are hazardous alcohol users, almost half of whom have severe alcohol problems. I hope that we can all agree that punishing people for behaving in a certain way, without trying to help them stop behaving in that way, cannot be a long-term solution.
	However, there are solutions, as Alcohol Concern has advised your Lordships recently in a briefing. Dudley borough arrest referral scheme is one of those solutions. It is a partnership between the police and their local alcohol treatment service. When people are arrested for alcohol-related offences, their custody officers can refer them to Aquarius, the local treatment service. They attend two one-hour sessions, where their use of alcohol is assessed. They are supported in action planning to prevent or reduce the likelihood of reoffending due to alcohol. That is a good, joined-up approach, a proactive approach, and a proven successful approach.
	The Bill's firm stance on tackling alcohol-related crime is welcome. But the provision of support and treatment is still not on the scale that we are looking for, although I was pleased to hear that there will be amendments in Committee following the debate in the other place. To that end, I will table an amendment in Committee about arrest referral schemes. I will urge the Government to consider adopting more positive steps to help people to change their relationship with alcohol, which will be along the lines I have just described.
	On enforcement, the Bill contains many strong new measures, but I must voice my concerns about whether those measures will be put into practice on the ground. As mentioned, legal measures are already available to tackle alcohol misuse, the key example being that it is illegal to sell alcohol to children and to people who are already drunk. But how widely are those laws enforced? In 2003, there were just 616 prosecutions for selling alcohol to children, and a mere eight for selling alcohol to people who were drunk. I know that greater efforts have been made recently, but it is important that the Bill does not become just more legislation to be underenforced or not enforced at all. For that reason, I will table an additional amendment to allow this House to discuss mechanisms for monitoring the enforcement of this Bill's measures to reduce sales of alcohol to under-age drinkers and to assess their impact annually.
	I welcome the Bill and the fact that the Government have made the link between alcohol and crime and are well and truly acting on it. However, with 23,000 incidents of alcohol-related violence every week, and with an average of 13 under-18 year-olds admitted to hospital each day as a result of having drunk too much, we need to get the strategy absolutely right. We have to be sure that these measures will be enforced and that genuine help will be offered to people who want and are willing to change how they drink. I look forward to Committee and to discussing these issues in greater detail.

The Earl of Shrewsbury: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. The matters that I wish to address concern Part 2, which deals with firearms, imitation weapons and other related issues. I thank the Minister for describing how she is prepared to make specific to the Bill the date of 1870 for antique weapons. We are most grateful. I declare my interest as a former chairman of the Firearms Consultative Committee, the current chairman of the British Shooting Sports Council and the honorary president of the Gun Trade Association. The latter two bodies have an interest in this Bill.
	The major sports shooting associations in the UK work together under the aegis of the British Shooting Sports Council. The council's aims and objectives are to promote and safeguard the lawful ownership and use of firearms and air weapons for sporting and recreational purposes in the United Kingdom among all sections of the community. The Gun Trade Association is exactly that: it represents the interests of its members who trade in firearms, both activated and deactivated, in air weapons, ammunition and a wide range of items associated with shooting sports. It promotes the export of many millions of pounds' worth of such goods from this country, is actively supported by UK Trade and Investment and, from the world-famous London best quality shotguns to the smallest of air weapons, it makes a considerable contribution to this country's economy by employing thousands of people, many of them very fine craftsmen and women.
	I am delighted to say that Great Britain is truly world class in the manufacture and supply of shooting equipment, and in the sporting field the British shooting team has recently enjoyed considerable success at the Commonwealth Games in Australia. I believe that your Lordships would wish to congratulate the team on its resounding achievements, in particular Mick Gault, who has really done British shooting proud. Even before his standard pistol gold medal five days ago, Mr Gault had become the most successful English Commonwealth Games competitor ever—and he is a shooter. It would be nice to think that the Prime Minister, while visiting various British teams in Melbourne, would also pay a visit to our shooting team and especially to Mr Gault, but that is probably unlikely.
	Notwithstanding the achievements of our sportsmen and women in the shooting field, despite the world-renowned exports of our gun trade, and despite our world-class shooting grounds, anyone who legally enjoys the ownership and use of guns is classed in the main by the media and politicians as unsavoury, to say the least—the phrase "pariah of society" comes to mind. Yet it is widely accepted and proven that the vast amount of crime involving firearms is committed using illegally held weapons. This fact was acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in winding up the debate initiated recently by my noble friend Lord Marlesford on a national firearms register—or rather the lack of such a register, but we will not go into that now. However, the Government appear to land the blame on the doorstep of the legal enthusiast, at whom the resulting legislative action is aimed. It is a widely held view that the possession and use of illegally held firearms has ballooned in recent years, despite the ban on handguns. I am in complete agreement with the comments just made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll.
	We in this country have some of the toughest gun laws in the world. Although we in the British Shooting Sports Council welcome any moves to enhance the safety of the public, such matters should be addressed only after full consultation with those who will be affected by such legislation. The Government's own advisory body, the Firearms Consultative Committee, was stood down in 2004 and its replacement is yet to be established. The FCC proved an invaluable mechanism for consultation with all interested parties. My noble friend Lord Kimball and I know that only too well because we are both former chairmen of the committee.
	The fact is that in 2004 Her Majesty's Government published a consultation document on firearms legislation which included an undertaking that,
	"specific proposals will be made in the light of comments received in response to this consultation . . . the consultation paper is a first step and a comprehensive review of firearms legislation . . . Next steps will be proposed in the light of comments received".
	A further undertaking was made that:
	"Impact assessments will be taken forward with those that might be affected as the consultation develops".
	I understand that the many comprehensive responses to the consultation paper have yet to be analysed by the Home Office. There has been no feedback to consultees and no further progress in the process for consultation laid down by the Cabinet Office.
	The 2005 Labour Party manifesto promised only that a Labour government would,
	"restrict the sale of replica guns, raise the age limit for buying knives and tighten the law on air guns".
	A mini-manifesto was then published, entitled Tackling Crime. It undertook to,
	"crack down on the use of replica guns by making it illegal to buy an imitation firearm below the age of 18; to consult on doubling the sentence for possession of an imitation firearm in public places; and to consult on the feasibility and effectiveness of a range of measures including banning the sale of any replica firearm other than one which no reasonable person could mistake for a real gun".
	Part 2 of the Bill was brought forward within weeks of the new Government taking office and with absolutely no adequate prior consultation. Two new clauses, Clauses 26 and 27, which will have a serious effect on the sale of air guns and the livelihood of those who sell them, were introduced in the other place at the Committee stage with no prior consultation, as previously indicated, with any of the bodies that would be affected.
	While wishing fervently to protect and enhance the safety of the public, the Government should not lose sight of the interests of the many who derive their livelihood from the gun trade and the hundreds of thousands of persons who legally and responsibly participate in and enjoy the various sporting shooting disciplines. I make a plea to the noble Baroness to do whatever she can to protect those interests during this Bill's progress through your Lordships' House.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise to deliver a speech which will be welcomed by all in the Chamber—the last speech from the Back Benches. It will not be long but, before I begin, I should declare some interests: I am a consultant to the Co-operative Group; I am the president of the all-party group for the retail trade; and many years ago I was a member of the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers.
	But I speak primarily as a consumer and as a citizen, and I can assure the Minister that everyone who watches television or walks around the streets at night, for one reason or another, is well aware of this topic. I watch programmes that show the police doing a very difficult job in city centres, areas and neighbourhoods. One sees disgraceful behaviour and aggravation towards the police and others and I wish something could be done about it. The Minister will not give a copper-bottomed guarantee that what is required—that is, better behaviour or punishment for those who will not behave—will be brought about by the Bill but, as noble Lords on both sides of the House have said, it is part of the package that the Government launched some years ago. I am, therefore, deeply indebted to her for having spelt out so clearly the part that this legislation will play.
	The Minister said that alcohol-related violence around pubs and clubs needed a new civic order and that the Government were introducing the Bill so that there were measures available to discourage bad and violent behaviour at night in streets around them, and to raise the quality of the management of premises. Nothing is more sickening to the normal, law-abiding citizen than to see such scenes on television and otherwise, and the Minister and her colleagues are to be congratulated on finding time, in a plethora of other legislation far more important than this—but not of more importance to those who are affected by such behaviour—to give this matter some attention. I certainly wish the Bill well.
	I have mentioned my contacts with the retail trade over many years. The British Retail Consortium, which speaks on behalf of the retail trade, large and small, has drawn my attention to the fact that the retail trade, and the BRC in particular, was fundamental in setting up the Retail Alcohol Standards Group, the RASG. This is a collaborative group comprising the major retailers, the Association of Convenience Stores, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association and other key stakeholders. It was established to ensure a co-ordinated and consistent approach to tackling the problem of underage sales in the off-trade.
	As a regular consumer in stores large and small, I know that the retail trade is attempting to tackle one source of violence at night—the violence which comes from underage sales. All till staff have been retrained to ensure that they understand that it is company policy to ask for—the Minister will be shocked—identity cards from anyone who appears to be under 21. This has played a significant part in both reminding till staff that they have a role to play and frightening off youngsters who try to get away with purchasing alcohol in this way.
	My main concern, however, is the part of the Bill which deals with alcohol disorder zones. The generality may appear sound: based on evidence which is gathered by the police and known about by the local authority, a zone is designated. I assume it can be as small, compact and tight as they wish, but it can also be the entire area of the local authority. Once the area is designated, whether it is large or small, the people trading within it have to pay for a licence on certain terms—the Minister can help me, either here or in Committee—in order to trade. But such disturbances do not happen outside supermarkets or even specialist stores—they happen outside pubs, clubs and similar places. Why should those who, if not blameless, carry far less of the blame have to pay or to increase their costs in the same way as some of the units which do?
	There is a difference between the off-trade and the on-trade. With regard to the on-trade, people go there specifically to buy a bottle of booze. Alcohol makes up only 11 per cent of the sales of large retailers and the retail trade—in other words, 89 per cent of sales go on non-alcoholic products. Why should they carry the burden when they are not contributing anything like as much to it? Will my noble friend, in accepting my congratulations on introducing the Bill, say something about how that matter might be eased?
	Clause 12(1) allows for charging mechanisms to apply to all holders of premises licences for the sale of alcohol by retail within alcohol disorder zones. Clause 12(7) gives the Secretary of State permission to apply exclusions from the clause by secondary regulations. He is restricted in allowing exclusions only for premises where the sale of alcohol is neither the principal use of the premises nor the main reason for people entering the premises. I wonder whether my noble friend appreciates—as I am sure she does in general—the burdens that are placed on the retail industry in one form or another. Can she give some indication of the width or generosity of the interpretation of Clause 12(7) so that, by and large, retailers for whom alcohol is only a tiny proportion of their sales will receive the necessary exclusion?
	I conclude, as all my colleagues have, by saying that this measure, like many others, is sorely needed. Along with my noble friend Lord Brooke, I am somewhat puzzled at the low number of prosecutions and of those who are found guilty of disturbing the peace in this way. It is a puzzle to me why the powers that have already been given are not exercised properly. I wish my noble friend and her colleagues well in ensuring that this measure is not only well received but well supported by the police and the local authorities.

Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I join the noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, in wondering why the legislation that is already in existence has not been enforced to the degree that it might have been. It is undoubtedly the case that the enforcement of that legislation has weakened, and I share with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, a concern that the new powers granted in the Bill be used. I shall look forward to his amendments to monitor these powers and see whether they are being put to effective use.
	We seem to be faced today with a youth culture which is fuelled perhaps by greater wealth—more money in the pocket—and certainly by cheaper and stronger drinks. The sorts of drinks that are customarily consumed are probably three times the strength of the Wrexham lager which I used to drink in my youth. Consequently, a youth culture exists. The night economy, which is a new phrase that I have heard in connection with this Bill, arises out of the youth culture. The Minister promised us a new civic order, but I hope that she will bear in mind that she should be legislating for the safety of the young in a young environment. We do not want to see our streets made safe only for those of more mature years.
	How do we deal with binge drinking? In a press release of 7 February last year, the Association of Chief Police Officers stated:
	"We are never going to solve the problem through enforcement alone as enforcement only deals with the symptoms and not the cause. ACPO continues to stress the importance of a far more holistic approach that includes dealing with the culture of excessive drinking and the need for all of the drinks industry to adopt a responsible attitude. Our fear is that we will never solve the problem if we do not address its underlying causes".
	I am pleased to see moves to ban "happy hours" and the provision of cheap drink at an early time in the evening. We have yet to see whether, in the youth centres where the night economy flourishes, we will all be sipping wine on the pavement as we were promised in previous legislation that went through this House.
	I welcome the amendments that the Minister has promised to help deal with the problems of drink. It is interesting that 87 per cent of the participants in the Dudley alcohol arrest referral scheme, to which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, referred, are recorded to have had positive experiences and have been helped. We suggest that the Government build on that pilot by putting forward a national programme, as Alcohol Concern has suggested.
	For a drinking banning order to be made, there is no requirement, as is the case with ASBOs, that the conduct complained of,
	"caused, or is likely to cause, harassment, alarm or distress to others".
	That is necessary for an ASBO to be made. Therefore, conduct of which people merely disapprove is within the scope of drinking banning orders. You do not have to show that anybody is alarmed or harassed. That means that the order is broadly available.
	I am one of those who have always been a critic of ASBOs, because it is just a device to make a civil order on a lower standard of proof and with lower standards of evidence—hearsay evidence has always been accepted. The case of McCann, however, which came before this House on appeal, has made a significant difference by requiring a full criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt for an ASBO. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that a similar standard of proof will be required in the making of drinking banning orders. However, the Government have conceded that a breach of a drinking banning order will not lead to imprisonment, as they had originally suggested. That is where the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester may take some comfort in his concern with how many more would be incarcerated as a result of this Bill.
	But then there are other vague areas that we need to explore. The scope of the order is to impose any prohibition. ASBOs have been issued in strange circumstances, and I imagine that we will be reading in the popular press in due course that peculiar conditions and prohibitions have been placed on these drinking banning orders as well, as they are qualified only by provisions that they do not exclude a person going home, to work or to school.
	The provisions are then concerned with disorderly conduct under the influence of alcohol—not that a person is drunk but that he acts in a disorderly way under the influence of alcohol. Very few people in this country have not come within that definition at some time in their lives. The order is made if it,
	"is necessary to protect relevant persons from further conduct by him of that kind".
	That is a safeguard; it has to be shown that it is "necessary"; but there is no question whether, although necessary, it is an appropriate order to make—and when you are dealing with people who are suffering from some form of mental illness, that is a matter of importance.
	The interim orders proposed under Clause 8 are made without notice to the individual concerned and can be renewed indefinitely. We shall be looking to see what we can do to ensure that there is a finite period for which an interim order can be made against a person who has no notice of it.
	Another matter that is controversial is what is thought to be the "badge of shame"; of naming and shaming young people who are subject to these orders. It may well be thought to be a badge of honour to have your picture up in the local newsagent as a person against whom one of these DBOs has been made. It is contrary to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which says:
	"States parties recognise the right of every child alleged as, accused of, or recognised as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child's sense of dignity and worth, which reinforces the child's respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child's age and the desirability of promoting the child's reintegration and the child's assuming a constructive role in society".
	Naming and shaming and putting up photographs of people who are subject to ASBOs has taken place, and it is a very controversial area that we need to look at closely in Committee.
	As for the alcohol disorder zones, we support the concept that there should be a mechanism that holds licensees accountable for the impact that their businesses have on local communities. We welcome the idea that they should contribute to the costs of disorder in their particular area. But I share the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who referred to the provision as rather odd, and of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, who said that there was no distinction between the good and the bad operator. I do not know that I quite followed the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, when he said that the mere presence of a number of licensed premises creates a rowdy scene, so they may as well all pay, but I may have misunderstood his argument. But I think that there should be a discretion to share the costs fairly and that the good licensee should not be penalised in the same way as a bad licensee.
	No distinction is drawn between the types of operation. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, made this point very strongly a moment ago, and my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones pointed out that there is a distinction between a public house, off-licences and so on, so we should look at that. Nor is a cap proposed on the amount of the charge. When Hazel Blears was asked in another place whether there was a cap or whether the whole cost was to be spread among licensed premises, she said:
	"I am mindful of the fact that charges need to be set at a level that enables the police and local authorities to recover the costs of the extra enforcement activity".
	So initially you get the impression that they are going to pay for everything.
	"However, charges should not be set at a level that is so high that it could have almost the reverse effect and push people into economic non-viability".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee B, 18/10/05; col. 107.]
	That requires some clarification.
	There is no time limit to these alcohol disorder zones, and therefore no incentive for local authorities to bring to an end the revenue that ADZs will bring; and, as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones said, there is no appeal. There are matters to look at. While we are in favour of it in principle, we do not think the scheme as proposed is without flaw.
	As for directions to individuals to leave a particular locality, they give a wide power to the police. A person can be ordered away although he has done nothing wrong—presence in the locality is enough—and the police constable is the sole arbiter of whether the individual is likely to cause or contribute to the occurrence of alcohol-related crime or disorder, or indeed whether it is necessary for him to be told to leave. There is no appeal. Liberty has helpfully quoted from another case from the Appeal Committee in the House of Lords: Gillan v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and another. The legality of a broadly drafted power—Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000—was being considered. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, said,
	"The exercise of power by public officials, as it affects members of the public, must be governed by clear and publicly-accessible rules of law. The public must not be vulnerable to interference by public officials acting on any personal whim, caprice, malice, predilection or purpose other than that for which the power was conferred. This is what, in this context, is meant by arbitrariness, which is the antithesis of legality. This is the test which any interference with or derogation from a Convention right must meet if a violation is to be avoided".
	What we do not want, in a crowded scene late at night, is for policemen, without proper reason, to be pushing people about, ordering them out of the locality and telling them not to come back for 48 hours, as the Bill envisaged. Will guidance be given to police officers on how these powers should be exercised?
	With regard to firearms, I fully support the offence of using someone to "mind" a weapon. That frequently happens. I have had experience of it. I have nothing to add to the way the Bill is framed except to commend it, but I do oppose the minimum sentence provisions in this regard in Clause 24(4) and (5), which we will need to look at, particularly when it concerns children of 16 and 17. We have been around the course a few times on minimum sentences, but what this really does is take away the discretion a judge should exercise in this area. Regarding air guns, the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, asked if this was all cosmetic. I wonder that, too. I declare that I do not shoot and have never shot, but I have been shot by an air gun, when I was quite young. I remember it well, and very painful it was.
	I support responsible shooting for both pest control and sport. The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, has outlined with enthusiasm the importance of shooting and its success as a sport. I commend him for that. But short of making a gesture, it is not clear what the Government are about with regard to air guns. They do not try and ban air guns; indeed, the Home Office consultation paper of May 2004 says:
	"We do not believe that licensing of low-powered airguns and imitations, or restrictions on their sale, is proportionate or enforceable".
	The Government have changed their mind since then, and I want to know why. Was it cosmetic, or a gesture, or what?
	Take, for example, the phrase "purchased by a licensed dealer". We know that other guns are subject to licensing and certification and can be traced after sale, but, as has been pointed out, there are 7 million air guns in circulation which certainly cannot be traced, so how can purchase from a registered dealer have anything to do with that? I refer to face-to-face sales designed to cut out mail order sales. Why is that?
	There are many other matters. I see that time is getting on and I shall not weary your Lordships further except to refer, finally, to searching by teachers. We shall need to look closely at that very important matter. What are "reasonable grounds" for believing that a schoolboy or schoolgirl is carrying a weapon? I refer to the bulge in the pocket and the emotional volatility that have already been mentioned. There has to be guidance. When is such action appropriate? Is it appropriate to take it to protect another child or a teacher when it is not possible to call the police? How is it to be carried out? Surely it should be carried out by designated teachers who have been trained not just in what is meant by the use of reasonable force but also in how to deal with armed people. I was involved in the tragic case of the stabbing of the headmaster, Philip Lawrence—it had a substantial effect on me—which concerned the carrying of knives by young people. It is a difficult and dangerous area. There should at least be another teacher present, and not "another person", as it says in the Bill. We shall have to consider how the search is carried out and make sure that there is sensitivity to ethnic differences and so on. There is a lot of material there that we shall look at closely in Committee.
	The Bill will be very welcome once we have looked at it and perhaps improved it, and once we are sure that it will be put into effect and enforced. I am sure that if we can do that, this will be a safer country.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, no one would dispute that the purpose of the Bill is praiseworthy. I am sure that any measures that will reduce violent crime, so long as they are necessary and proportionate, will receive the support of the whole House. It is in that spirit of general support that, as my noble friend Lady Anelay said, we on the opposition Benches will approach the Bill.
	However, when one ventures beyond the title of the Bill, it becomes evident that, in fact, the Bill is relatively modest. I cannot help but feel that although it addresses some of the symptoms of the disease of violent crime, it does not really address the causes of it. Trying to legislate out of the problem of the rise in violent crime across our towns and cities is not necessarily the panacea that the Government might have us believe is needed.
	The progress of the Bill in another place drew attention to the redundancy of some of the measures proposed. The primary answer to the problem of the wave of alcohol-related disorder that is affecting our towns and cities is enforcement of existing law on the ground, not reduplicating it in different guises in further legislation—a theme which has run through the whole of this debate.
	The police need the right resources and manpower, not necessarily more schemes and the resultant paperwork. Indeed, the reliance of this Government on creating more legislation rather than using the existing law effectively has been, as I say, a recurrent theme. I need only mention the recent passage of the Terrorism Bill, where the Government expended large amounts of effort in asserting that we needed new offences to catch those who glorify terrorism. I refer to the example of the Danish embassy. I must be careful because that is sub judice, but the problem there was not the existing legislation, which was quite adequate, particularly with regard to incitement to murder; the problem was how the situation was dealt with by the police.
	My noble friend Lady Anelay highlighted those areas where we will be able to support the Government. Their proposals for drink banning orders will give the courts more varied, if not necessarily greater, powers to ban from pubs and other establishments those individuals who drink irresponsibly and cause trouble. That was well covered by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Brooke, and was summarised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
	The alcohol disorder zone proposals have some merit, but the Government must make sure that this House has sufficient regard to the detail. We look forward to seeing the draft regulations and guidelines. As always in such matters, the devil is in the detail. We owe it to the interested parties affected by the legislation, primarily landlords and those in the off-licence trade, to scrutinise the proposals carefully. The Government should not be let off the hook by trying to leave everything to regulations, as they are so fond of doing. However, I welcome the Minister's assurance that at least some of those regulations will be subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses.
	The interests of small businesses must be borne in mind when the question of imposition of charges is debated in Committee. The Government will be put to proof over the fairness of any arbitrary or blanket imposition of charges to ensure that they are neither anomalous nor plainly inequitable. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, who is not in his place, was very interesting on that point. I welcome the assurance from the Minister that ADZs will be used only as a measure of last resort.
	We welcome many of the measures in Part 2. My noble friend Lady Anelay has already indicated our support for the new offence of using someone to mind a weapon. The provisions concerning the sale of air weapons must attract greater controversy, as will the provisions concerning realistic imitation weapons. That has been well covered. I do not share the confidence of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, that an assailant armed with a real weapon when firing at me will miss. My noble friend Lady Anelay mentioned the sport of airsoft. I reiterate what she said: I hope that the Government will listen to our concerns about the effect that the Bill will have on that perfectly legitimate activity.
	My noble friend has also mentioned the provisions of the Bill that increase the age at which knives can be legally purchased. That leads me back to the point that I raised earlier about the effectiveness of legislation. The Bill makes a great deal of making it harder to purchase potentially offensive weapons, but the effect that that will have on preventing crime is likely to be minimal. Much of the Bill is targeted towards limiting the ability to buy potentially dangerous weapons, be they air rifles, replicas or knives. As we know, much gun crime is committed with illegally held weapons and weapons smuggled in from abroad. We should be under no illusion that the Bill offers a quick-fix solution to these problems.
	My noble friend Lady Anelay has set a fine example for all in her assurance that we on these Benches will not try to amend Part 3. Nevertheless, my noble friend Lord Glentoran and the noble Lords, Lord Pendry and Lord Addington, have raised the issue of stewards at sport events falling under the same statutory regulation as doorkeepers, otherwise known as bouncers. My noble friend's proposals are sensible, and I hope that the Government will give them due consideration.
	My noble friend Lady Anelay also drew attention to some new proposals that we intend to introduce when the Bill reaches Committee. They relate to the relatively recent menace of happy slapping and to the issue of Olympic pistol training. I hope that the Government will consider the proposals in the same spirit in which they are proposed: in the first case, a constructive and sincere effort to convict and punish appropriately those who take part in that sickening type of behaviour; in the second case, a sincere effort to help those who have been unnecessarily prevented from training in a perfectly legitimate sport. Those subjects were raised by my noble friends Lord Glentoran and Lord Shrewsbury.
	The gun legislation following Dunblane understandably contained some elements of knee-jerk reaction. It is therefore all the more important that, in the calmer circumstances in which this Bill is considered, a proper consultation should take place when further regulation, particularly with regard to air guns, is considered. My noble friend also made that point.
	This has been a most constructive debate throughout, and I shall listen with great interest to the Minister.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I endorse straightaway what the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, said about the constructive tone of the debate. We have assent from all Benches that these are issues with which we must grapple. I very much accept the pithy and telling comments made by the noble Viscount that the devil is often in the detail. We need to be proportionate and ensure that we do only that which is necessary. I respectfully agree with him on that. I commend, welcome and celebrate the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in relation to her restraint on Part 3. She is an exemplar I ask others to follow.
	I say, too, on a serious note that we do not see the Bill as a panacea to all ills. It is not, but it is a valiant and appropriate contribution to the tool kit that we think we need as a community to respond to difficult and pressing problems with which we are jointly faced. The tasks that the Bill will address are important.
	We very much take on board the comments made by the right reverend Prelate on the need to ensure that the offences that we have are necessary. I endorse the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, about the drink banning orders. They do not contain a provision regarding imprisonment, but they contain an appropriate community intervention in relation to responding to a difficult problem—and with support.
	The Bill must be seen alongside all the other measures that we are taking on health and education to try to change the culture to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, referred. I agree that there is a need to address the underlying problem of alcohol misuse. That is why we are introducing new clauses to enable individuals to take a course to address their alcohol misuse and behaviour.
	I very much endorse what was said by my noble friend Lord Brooke, who made some powerful points not only in support of the Bill, but in directing our minds and attention to the work that is being done more broadly to support the reduction of abuse of alcohol. I assure him that the Government and the Department of Health are convening a group with industry representatives specifically to consider labelling and the sensible-drinking message. The undertaking given in the Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy is to review the strategy in 2007.
	Of course, the Government are continually assessing the impact of new developments and will respond accordingly. They are involved in alcohol referral schemes in a number of areas, and the Home Office, through the conditional caution pilots and the custody referral schemes for drink and capacity, is dealing with that too. The Department of Health and the screening and brief intervention pilots are seeking to make a contribution.
	The Minister with responsibility for alcohol matters in the Home Office is my honourable friend Paul Goggins. He met representatives of the Aquarius scheme in Dudley and has asked officials to explore alcohol referral schemes in detail. In saying that, I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that we are taking these issues absolutely seriously. I know that that is certain to be a satisfaction to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others who have raised them this evening.
	I could excite your Lordships by giving a long catalogue of further things that we are doing in that regard, but perhaps we can wait until we come to Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others sought to indicate that we are not enforcing the current law, but we are doing so. The figures are not going down. If one looks at the figures for the number of defendants proceeded against in the magistrates' court and found guilty, and sentenced at all courts for offences in England and Wales, the figures for enforcement of drunk and disorderly behaviour have gone up, not down. We can track the figures from 1993 to 2003. I shall give the headline figure. In 1993 it was 20,578; in 2003 it was 31,343. We know that prosecution is not the only answer; education, intervention and the help and support programmes are also of critical importance.
	The Government's commitment is evidenced in this Bill. It is clear that we have already taken many steps to enhance our performance and that has been beneficial. I have touched on the subject of the behaviour orders, and from what noble Lords across the House have said about them it is clear that we all think they will be beneficial and supportive, particularly if we rely on the additional support that I have indicated we will bring forward in future.
	It is right that we consider alcohol disorder zones. I very much welcome the support from right round the House in that respect, but there is a huge amount of detail. That detail was questioned in the other place and we have to consider it here. I can assure noble Lords that we are giving it the most anxious and acute consideration.
	The issues raised by noble Lords are valid and we want to be able to make an appropriate response. I hope that I have reassured the House that we do not see alcohol disorder zones as the first port of call but very much as the last after the action plans and using the available licensing provisions. But they may be a useful tool. However, we will return to those many complex and detailed issues in Committee. I hope that I will be able to better satisfy my noble friend Lord Graham, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Baroness, the noble Viscount and others who raised those matters. They are proper issues and we will have to deal with them in detail.
	As I have already indicated, we will also be following the recommendations on the affirmative resolution. Therefore, we will have another opportunity, even after the passage of this Bill, to ensure that we get it right—a point echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
	With regard to alcohol disorder zones, I hope that I can also reassure my noble friend Lord Graham that the size of the area that might be designated is of acute concern to us. We do not think that it would be appropriate for the whole of a local authority's area to be so designated without very powerful information to justify it. The ADZs will be very tightly drawn around specific areas—perhaps a very few streets—which is why we have defined them as I have just indicated.
	We consulted the industry on ADZs. Proposals for them were included in our consultation paper, Drinking Responsibly: The Government's Proposals, published in January 2005, and Ministers and officials met the industry in the summer and autumn of 2005 to discuss these matters. We will continue to consult the industry on the orders, including the guidance, as the Bill requires us to do. Noble Lords will also see that the Bill provides for a 28-day consultation period in areas where ADZs are proposed. I know that that consultation concerns the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, acutely.
	The Licensing Act—a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—strengthens the powers available to local partners to take tough action against irresponsible operators. We hope that the ADZs will build on that strong foundation. We will continue to look at how we can better support responsible drinking. The responsible drinking consultation paper said that the link between sale and consumption and a particular premise and disorder may be tenuous. That is not the same as saying that the link between alcohol and disorder is tenuous, but we can address that at a later stage.
	I now turn to the issues relating to guns. I found the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, interesting, but I rather agree with the noble Viscount that his interpretation was somewhat alarming. We think it sensible to restrict access to dangerous weapons used in violent crime but, as I said earlier, there is much to be done in addressing the gun culture. Last year, the £2 million from recycled criminal assets was used on anti-gun projects. The Connected Fund was launched in 2004 and it has given support to more than 200 community groups working to tackle gun crime and related matters. That is an issue on which we have to work quite hard.
	I know that the matter of private museums has excited the attention of the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I am pleased to be able to give a bit of pleasure right at the beginning, so that we may have a slightly happier time than otherwise. We have in Clause 33 already provided defences where the imitation firearm is made available for the purposes of a museum or gallery. We accept that this may have been drawn a little too tightly, in that it confines the defence to museums that do not distribute any profit that they make. We will therefore extend this defence in Committee, so that certain private museums—which are open to the public as bona fide tourist attractions—can acquire new exhibits. I hope that your Lordships will think that a sensible and appropriate move.
	A number of noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, and, again, the noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay—raised the issue of pistol sports. I join the noble Earl in celebrating the fantastic shooting results that we have had at the Commonwealth Games. That may indicate that the things that we have done have not inhibited our success, but perhaps that is for another day.
	Pistol shooting events will certainly be able to go ahead in 2012 without changes to legislation. We have already said that we will put in place the same arrangements that worked so well for the Manchester Commonwealth Games, involving use of the Home Secretary's powers under Section 5 of the Firearms Act to authorise competitors and officials to possess prohibited handguns for the duration of the games and for the special warm-up events. We will discuss with colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport what arrangements should be made to allow squads to practise in the United Kingdom in advance of the games. I hope that that, too, has given satisfaction to noble Lords opposite.
	The noble Baroness raised the issue of airsoft rifles. It has been suggested that we have cast our net a little too wide and that the proposed ban on the manufacture, import and sale of realistic imitation firearms will bear down too hard on people who engage in airsoft activities. While we accept that realism is an important aspect of skirmishing, we can see no good reason why non-realistic guns cannot be used for these activities. The Bill makes provision for size, shape and colour to be taken into account in determining whether an imitation firearm is distinguishable from a real firearm, and airsofters can take advantage of these provisions. We will be looking at this area together, and I assure noble Lords opposite that the Government are trying to be constructive in addressing this issue.
	Noble Lords will know that we received a large response to the consultation on firearms—around 4,500 submissions. They have all been read and analysed, and we are considering how to proceed. A summary of the responses will be published in due course. We have a duty to act immediately when it becomes apparent that steps are needed to protect public safety; in particular, the increasing use of imitation firearms in crime means that we need to place restrictions on their general availability. I am glad to welcome the comments made in support of that right around the House. I reiterate my thanks for the constructive approach on that.
	My noble friend Lord Pendry made interesting and comprehensive comments on ticket touting. I commend him for his unstinting work in this area over a number of years. The provisions in the Bill on ticket touting extend the existing legislation to cover sales over the internet. Ticket touting for football matches has public order consequences, as he has indicated. Unauthorised sales undermine crowd segregation, which is why we are using public order legislation to address touting in football. Similar problems in relation to the potential for disorder do not apply to other sports in the same way. We will, of course, be keeping this issue under review.
	I took to heart the concerted three-Bench, three-pronged approach from the noble Lords, Lord Glentoran and Lord Addington, and my noble friend Lord Pendry regarding the application of the licensing provisions in the Private Security Industry Act 2001 to security guards in the sports and events sector. The Bill presents an opportunity to seek views from all concerned. We have today published a consultation document on the application of the licensing provisions and I hope that it will give us an opportunity to look at this issue and get it right. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and others who think that we have applied this law by some slip that it is not, as is claimed, an accident that the sports sector was included in the Bill's provisions. The security industry is broad, but we are keen to consult further to ensure that we get it right, that it catches those who should be caught and that another way can be found for those for whom another way should be found.
	The noble Baroness touched on the issue of knives. As she rightly said, there is already a range of legislation to tackle the problem of knife crime. It is an offence to carry a knife in a public place without good reason or lawful authority, with the exception of a small, folding pocket-knife. Those found guilty face a penalty of up to two years' imprisonment. The possession of an offensive weapon without lawful authority or reasonable excuse carries a maximum penalty of four years in prison. We are tackling knife crime in a variety of ways. They include a knife amnesty to which I referred earlier that will run in England and Wales from 24 May to 30 June. The provisions in the Bill particularly focus on problems associated with young people and knives. That is why we are raising the age at which a knife can be purchased to 18 and why we are introducing a power for staff in schools and colleges to search pupils and students for weapons. The Government are committed to tackling violent crime involving knives and offensive weapons and we believe that these measures will make a valuable contribution.
	Of course I hear it said that we allow people to get married at 16 but we will not let them buy knives. Well, some people think that it is fairly dangerous to get married at 16. However, it is lawful and has many benefits in terms of stability, security and warmth, among others. Buying knives that are not going to be used for normal proposes is a different matter. We must look at the issue. We have had a problem and it has been highlighted by some tragic consequences. Therefore, we think it necessary to look at the issue in a proportionate, reasonable and appropriate way. I can assure the House that that is how we intend to deal with it.
	The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, asked about searching pupils for weapons and whether two teachers would be necessary. The Bill provides that searches are carried out only in the presence of another person aged 18 or over and by an individual of the same sex as the pupil being searched. Another adult will be present, but I am sure that the noble Lord does not seek to make a distinction between a teaching assistant and a teacher or some other responsible adult in a school.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, as the weapons provisions in the Bill extend to Scotland, can the Minister resolve now the issue of whether the regulations will apply to ceremonial knives such as the sgian dubh, which is worn correctly in the top of the right-hand stocking when wearing highland dress?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I will write to the noble Earl, not least because he is not speaking in the gap. I shall write to him because he has given me an interesting question. I could give an off-the-cuff answer but I am concerned that it might not be right.
	I assure noble Lords that there will be guidance on the provisions for schools and that it will be provided to schools. All staff involved in searches should receive appropriate training.
	The Criminal Justice Act legislation dealt with the introduction of a mandatory minimum sentence of five years—a matter to which the noble Lord referred—for unlawful possession of a prohibited firearm in the 12 months to September 2005. As I said earlier, there has been a 38 per cent reduction in fatal injuries caused by firearms and other air weapons. We therefore know that if we appropriately enforce provisions in a Bill such as this, we can influence behaviour. That is why we are opening up this issue, to see whether we cannot do the same in relation to knives.
	I am absolutely confident that when we look at the Bill in detail we will be able together to make what I hope will be significant and important improvements. There is clearly a willingness from all sides of the House to make a contribution to get this right. We all agree that the things we want to do within it are sound. I therefore hope that we will have a pleasurable and enjoyable Committee stage, Report stage and Third Reading, that we will send the Bill to the other place in remarkably good shape, and that it will not be the cause of contention or lack of comity between us.
	On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill

The Bill was returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
	House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before nine o'clock.